← All Phrases

“creditworthiness of the creditor”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68914 judgments

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

Leading authorities on creditworthiness of the 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.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

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.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

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

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

Judgments citing creditworthiness of the creditor

Shrey Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1473/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 68

interest rate and amount paid on said loan during the year under consideration to prove the identity of creditors, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of said creditors. In response thereto, the assessee filed a submission only providing the names, addresses, and PAN of creditors. Again notice under section ... companies, including the assessee, at a commission of 0.5% to facilitate these transactions. Since the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction, the AO made the addition of Rs.13,95,00,000, as unexplained cash credit under section

Shrey Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1470/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 68

interest rate and amount paid on said loan during the year under consideration to prove the identity of creditors, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of said creditors. In response thereto, the assessee filed a submission only providing the names, addresses, and PAN of creditors. Again notice under section ... companies, including the assessee, at a commission of 0.5% to facilitate these transactions. Since the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction, the AO made the addition of Rs.13,95,00,000, as unexplained cash credit under section

Standard Fiscal Markets Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1469/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 68

interest rate and amount paid on said loan during the year under consideration to prove the identity of creditors, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of said creditors. In response thereto, the assessee filed a submission only providing the names, addresses, and PAN of creditors. Again notice under section ... companies, including the assessee, at a commission of 0.5% to facilitate these transactions. Since the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction, the AO made the addition of Rs.13,95,00,000, as unexplained cash credit under section

Xania Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2188/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 68

upon the assessee. It is well settled principle of law that the assessee has to prove three main ingredients, viz., identity of creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Once the assessee discharges initial burden placed on its shoulders, then the burden would shift upon the shoulders

DCIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Pam Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1594/DEL/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

Tribunal, however, in the fresh assessment proceeding, despite the Assessing Officer calling upon the assessee to furnish supporting evidence to prove creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, the assessee failed to furnish any fresh evidence except whatever was furnished in course of original assessment proceeding. Thus ... submitted, the assessee having failed to establish creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition under section 68 of the Act. 7 She submitted, learned first appellate authority has deleted the addition merely on the ground that the Assessing Officer

The ITO-1, Khandwa vs. M/S. R S P Real Estate, Khandwa

ITA 714/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito-1, M/S. Rsp Real Estate, बनाम/ Khandwa Ramkrishnaganj, Khandwa Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aapfr1699K Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

proceedings, the appellant had filed confirmations, PAN, copy of bank statements of creditors to prove the genuineness of unsecured loans. Further, the identity & creditworthiness of the creditors has already been accepted by the AO in the immediate preceding assessment year i.e. 2015-16. The copy of the assessment-order

ACIT Central -2, Bhopal vs. Shri Naresh Tharani, Bhopal

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed and COs of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 113/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No.108/Ind/2021 & Acit Central-2 Shri Naresh Tharani Bhopal E-2/149, Arera Colony Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aampt6514G

Section 153C

deleted the addition. He has further submitted that the onus cast upon the assesse was properly discharged by establishing identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The loan was received by the assessee through banking channels and the same was also repaid with interest through banking channels ... with the evidence filed by the assessee and held that mere confirmation would not discharge the assesse from the onus of proving identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. Thus, in absence of ITR, balance sheet, bank account statements of the loan creditors the AO held that

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Litloier Properties Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1979/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit, Circle-42(1)(1) Hanvant Singh Jabbar Singh Mumbai Ranawat Vs. C/204, Arihan Apt. Sodawala Lane, Govind Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092 Pan/Gir No. Adxpr 7563 F (Assessee) : (Respondent) : None Assessee By Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned

For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

details of the creditors by way of additional evidence before the first appellate authority, thereby discharging his initial onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.28,35,013/- only to the extent of 5 sundry

Barcelona Mercantile Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2346/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay N. KapadiaaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

appellate authority held that where all material evidence in support of explanation of credits in terms of identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors were available, without any infirmity in such evidence and the explanation required under Section 68 of the Act having been discharged, Assessing Officer ... returned a clear finding of fact that assessee had discharged its onus of proving identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors which finding of fact stood affirmed by the Tribunal. There is, thus, concurrent findings of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. Appellant

M/S Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3801/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Gian Sagar Educational Vs. Dcit & Charitable Trust, Central Circle-29, Sco 10-110, Sector 43B, New Delhi Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatg5827B

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 133(6)

followign three ingredients to be proved by the assessee:- (i) Identity of the creditor (ii) Genuineness of the transactions. (iii)Source and the creditworthiness of the creditor. (d) The provisions of section 115BBC of Income Tax provides that anonemus donation received by trust, educational institutional or hospital shall be charged

Habitat Housing Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1779/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23/12/2016, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 23/12/2016, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

after considering the Remand Report, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal as the assessee was not able to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction, therefore, submitted that the order of the lower authorities requires no interference. Habitat Housing Finance ... reply of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditors. The initial burden of proving the creditworthiness of creditors and the genuineness of the transaction is cast upon the Assessee as per Section

DCIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Ashwani Garg, Delhi

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2712/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumardcit, Vs. Ashwani Garg, Shop No. 112, 1St Floor, Crescent Circle-61(1), New Delhi Square, Dc Chowk, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaxpg2141H Assessee By : Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2023

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

require any interference as the reinvestment of interest received by creditors goes to show that the creditworthiness of the creditors is not in doubt and same cannot be doubted without any adverse positive material. The ld CIT(A) rightly noted that it is not the case of AO that

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

ITA 1440/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.02.00.00 made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors could not be proved. b. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,02,00,000/- on account

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

ITA 1438/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.02.00.00 made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors could not be proved. b. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,02,00,000/- on account

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

ITA 1437/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.02.00.00 made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors could not be proved. b. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,02,00,000/- on account

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

ITA 1436/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.02.00.00 made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors could not be proved. b. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,02,00,000/- on account

ACIT, CC- 30, New Delhi vs. J H Jewellers LLP, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi M/S. J H Jewellers Llp, 13, Sunder Nagar Market, Kasturba Vs. Nagar, South East, Delhi 110003 Pan Aacfj 3285 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit(Dr) For Assessee: Shri U.N Marwah, Ca Shri Parveen Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 25.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Deleting The Rs.11,24,76,000/- Additions Of Rs. 32,50,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The It Act 1961. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case Considering That As Per The Balance Sheet Of These Companies As On 31.03.2016, The Said Fund Were Available In The Balance Sheet Of All The Four Companies Under The Head "Cash & Cash Equivalents" As On 31.03.2015 Which Are Now Reflected In Current Investment In I.E. Investment As Capital In The Appellant Firm As On31.03.2016. Further, Relying On The Submission Of The Assessee That The Said Four Companies Introduced Funds In The Ay 2008-09, The Case Of Maharaja Tie Up, Dynamic Enclave & Shivshakti Commercial Pt Ltd Were Assessed W/S 147 Of The Act For A.Y. 2008-09 Accepting The Share Capital/Share Premium.

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 68

India. Thus, the identity of the person thru whom cheques received stands established. AO has conducted survey at the aforesaid address; (c) creditworthiness of the Creditor 23 • Audited Financial Statements for the financial year ending 31.03.2016. The financials depict substantial reserves, share of Profit from the Firm and the investment ... 6/30, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi having PAN: AADCG7784P. Thus the identity of the person thru whom cheques received stands established. 24 (c) Creditworthiness of the Creditor • Audited Financial Statements for the financial year ending 31.03.2016. There are sufficient reserves of the company to enable it to make payment towards Capital

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vikas Diamond Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4129/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 3351 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Diamond Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 0491 N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue For : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit-Xxxiii, New Delhi Both Dated 24.02.2014 For Ay 2008-09. Since Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Submitted That Regarding Ground No. 1 To 3 Of Revenue The Facts Are Similar & Identical Therefore Both The Appeals Are Being Adjudicated By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta

Devender Kumar and Mahinder Pal, Ld. Assessing Officer has commented that the appellant has not proved genuine of transaction, identity of creditors and creditworthiness of the creditors. In response to these objections, Ld. AR argued that all these creditors to whom shares have been allotted, were appearing in share applicant

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vikas Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 3351 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Acit, Central Circle-23, New Delhi M/S. Vikas Diamond Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Vs. Beedonpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan Aaccv 0491 N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue For : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit-Xxxiii, New Delhi Both Dated 24.02.2014 For Ay 2008-09. Since Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Submitted That Regarding Ground No. 1 To 3 Of Revenue The Facts Are Similar & Identical Therefore Both The Appeals Are Being Adjudicated By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta

Devender Kumar and Mahinder Pal, Ld. Assessing Officer has commented that the appellant has not proved genuine of transaction, identity of creditors and creditworthiness of the creditors. In response to these objections, Ld. AR argued that all these creditors to whom shares have been allotted, were appearing in share applicant

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

parties along with their ITR, PAN along with confirmations. Therefore, initial burden upon the assessee-company to prove genuineness of the credits and creditworthiness of the creditors have been proved. ….Bank statements are part of the record which also did not show if any cash have been deposited ... account and all the transactions are carried-out through banking channel only. Thus, the initial burden upon the assessee-company to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction have been established in the matter and burden upon assessee- company have been discharged