← All Phrases

“identity of creditor”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68515 judgments

The decision most relied on for identity of creditor is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on identity of creditor

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

DCIT v. Rohini Builders
256 ITR 360 · 2002 · High Court
489
citing judgments

An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by providing creditor details like PAN and addresses, proving creditworthiness via banking transactions, and demonstrating genuineness, especially when loans are repaid through cheques.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court
427
citing judgments

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.
299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
426
citing judgments

An assessee introducing share capital or share premium must establish the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor or creditor; the burden does not extend to proving the 'source of source' or the financial capacity of the investor's sub-creditors.

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT
264 ITR 254 · 2003 · High Court
340
citing judgments

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 680 · 2017 · High Court
303
citing judgments

Under Section 68, an assessee is only required to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the immediate creditor or share subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not obligated to establish the 'source of the source' of funds or the creditworthiness of sub-lenders, as this information may not be within the assessee's special knowledge.

Judgments citing identity of creditor

Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7243/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., Vs Ito, Shop No.9, Plot No.51, Block-C, Ward-20(3), Mahendru Enclave, Near Hans Cinema, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 17Th August, 2011, Declaring A Loss Of Rs.20,53,019/-. The Case Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 10Th March, 2014, Determining The Income At Rs.20,06,714/-. Thereafter, On The Basis Of Information Received During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation In The Case Of Entry Provider Shri Anand Kumar Jain & Shri Naresh Kumar Jain & Subsequent Investigation That The Assessee Is A Beneficiary Of Rs.39,00,055/-, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons U/S 147. Subsequently, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 26Th March, 2018 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Pcit-7, New Delhi. In Response To The Same, The Assessee Filed A Letter Stating That The Return Already Filed U/S 139 May Be Treated As The Return Filed In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. However, Another Letter Dated 7Th August, 2018 Was Issued To The Assessee Requesting Him To File The Return In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Ultimately Filed Its Return On 13Th August, 2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.4,053/-. Subsequently, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The It Act & Copies Of The Reasons Recorded Were Also Handed Over To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when documentary evidence in support of identity of creditors along with the assessment particulars or other evidences are placed on record which had neither been controverted nor it is disproved by the AO, no interference

M/S George P Johnson Event Marketing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1543/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year :2011-12 M/S. George P Johnson Event Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, (Formerly: George P Johnson Range – 7, Shobiz Event Marketing (P) Bengaluru. Ltd.,), Prestige Tudor Court, 40, 401, 34D Level, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aabcg 4928 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2019 O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Dated 30.04.2017 & It Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)

including the balance outstanding as on 31.03.2011, which proves the identity of the creditors, which the CIT(A) held as not proved the identity of creditors for confirming the addition made by the assessing officer. 3. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the outstanding balance ... assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it has furnished necessary evidences including identity of creditors before the AO and also filed various details to prove that purchases are in fact genuine which have arised out of normal business transactions