“genuineness of the transaction”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 685,938 judgments

The decision most relied on for genuineness of the transaction is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on genuineness of the transaction

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

1,967

citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More

82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court

1,579

citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

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.

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO

154 ITR 148 · 1985 · Supreme Court

741

citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.

103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court

696

citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

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.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court

567

citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

Judgments citing genuineness of the transaction

Bajaj Clothings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The DCIT-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 759/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

discharged. 11.2 As rightly pointed out by the ld. D.R., there is a huge burden on the assessee to explain the genuineness of the transaction also. Both the lower authorities have doubted the genuineness of the transaction. In our opinion, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to remit ... issue in dispute to the file of ld. AO to carry out necessary enquiry with the transaction to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the parties to the transaction. Ordered accordingly. 11.3 This ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Barbarian Power Gym Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 9 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4268/MUM/2023[2014 - 15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 133(6)Section 40Section 68

Assessing Officer ought to have issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the said party in order to verify the genuineness of the transaction. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act Rs. 32,000/- 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition

Income Tax Officer, Thane vs. Muljibhai Arjanbhai Sakaria, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2794/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 133(6) of the Act, the notice was issued to the assessee requesting to produce the above party for verification of the genuineness of the transaction with him. In response thereto, the assessee produced Shri VedprakashAnandprakash Gupta, who was stated to be the proprietor of Sunita Wire and Cables ... beneficiary of bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.54,97,661 from Sunita Wire and Cables. Accordingly, in order to verify the genuineness of the transaction, the AO sought information from the assessee regarding the complete name and address of the person Shri Muljibhai A. Sakaria. from whom the assessee

Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat Now the ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 351/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 351/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 101-104, Gcp Business Centre, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Surat. Vijay Cross Road, Now Ahmedabad. The Acit, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacn7717N & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 496/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 The D.C.I.T, Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(1)(1), Vs. 101-104, Gcp Business Centre, Ahmedabad. Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Vijay Cross Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)

assessee as the colourable device. The AO also observed that the assessee has not proved the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions. Furthermore, the notices issued to the parties for the confirmation under section 133(6) of the Act were returned as unserved. Accordingly ... corporate veil, ultimately, they were still the owners of the land transferred to the assessee. Thus, in given facts and circumstances, the genuineness of the transaction was also duly established. ITA nos.496 & 351/AHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 20 Hence, in view of the above detailed discussion the ground of appeal

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

share capital of the assessee company issued at premium. They explained the source of the said subscription of shares. In support of the genuineness of the transactions, they submitted various documents and evidences. M/s Swiss also furnished the copy of the assessment order dated 11.03.2014 passed in their case ... during the assessment proceedings submitted all the necessary documents to prove the I.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd genuineness of the transaction which are also reflected in the submissions made by the assessee before the ld. Pr. CIT as reproduced above. The ld. Counsel

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

passed u/s 144 of the Act observing that the assessee had failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction. A perusal of the assessment order dated 10.03.2015 reveals that the Assessing Officer in the said case has made general observation without discussing ... Before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished the relevant details and evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction, whereupon, the ld. CIT(A) forwarded the said details and evidences to the Assessing Officer I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 & C.O. 4/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

Sanjay Vimalchand Borana, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3831/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2010-11 Sanjay Vimalchand Borana, 3, Nanji Rawji Bldg, A.D.Marg , Sewree, Mumbai 400 015. Pan:Aeypb-2999-F - Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Shri Suni Mathews, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

assessee u/s 68 of the Act, i.e., the assessee is required to prove three main ingredients, viz., the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transactions and the credit worthiness of the creditor. If the assessee discharges the initial burden, then the burden would shift to the shoulders ... identity of the creditor could not be doubted with. Accordingly, in my view, the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transactions and the credit worthiness of the creditor have been proved by the assessee through the documents furnished by the creditor. Hence the burden has been shifted

Girish Narayan Bherwani, Khar West Mumbai vs. ITO It 1(1)(1), Scindia House Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3803/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Girish Narayan Bherwani Vs. Income Tax Officer (It)–1(1)(1) 11, 2Nd Floor, Sudhama Sadan Rom No. 114, 1St Floor 3Rd Road, Khar West 400052 Scindia House, Ballard Estate Pier, Mumbai 400038 Pan/Gir No. : Anwpb5554B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishant RuparelFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69B

same as deemed income of the assessee. The learned AO had passed the order without appreciating the fact that assessee had proved the genuineness of the transaction of investment in flat which had been routed through banking channels. Assessee has not paid any cash for the purchase of the property

DCIT CC, 4(3), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Mulchand Varma, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3592/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hari Steel Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3574/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

Revenue has not brought any material on record, not even an iota of aforesaid information, to Hari Steel Industries Ltd. disprove the genuineness of the transaction between the assessee and M/s. Kasturi Commodities Pvt. Ltd., which is continuing from the preceding year. Therefore, in view of the material available

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax 811, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Dilip Bhagwatlal Dalal, Charni Road, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2890/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Smt Smitha V. Nair

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act, since assessee has filed to satisfy all the three conditions viz. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of the gifts received by the assessee?” 3. The only dispute raised by the Revenue is against the deletion ... assessee is required to Dilip Bhagwatlal Dalal. establish the identity and creditworthiness of the gift givers and the genuineness of the transaction. In order to satisfy the aforesaid criteria, as required under section 68 of the Act, the assessee furnished the copy of gift deeds, the copy of ITR filed

Jmg Greens Promoters & Developers, Sirhind vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 410/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 410/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 J M G Green Promoters & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Income Tax, Developers, Patiala Opp. Jain Mandir, Chandigarh Road, Sirhind 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaifj0737F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala (Herein Referred To As ‘Pcit’ ) Dated 29.03.2022, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In Fact, An Application Dated 23.4.2024, Was Filed By The Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Taking An Additional Ground Of Appeal, Which 410-Chd-2022 –J M G Greens Promoters & Developers, Sirhind 2 Was Later On Merged With The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 24.4.2024. 3. The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -.

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Metal & Metals of India’ (supra), we find no force in the arguments of the ld. DR regarding non verification of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions by partners and partners investment in the partnership firm. 12. Regarding purchase and sales of land, we have also considered the arguments

ITO, WD. 1(2)(2), Race Course Circle, Vadodara vs. Neetaben Snehalkumar Patel, Race Course Circle, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 247/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 247/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15) िनधा"रण वष"

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Talati, A.R

Section 10(38)Section 68

submitted that the purchase and sale transactions were all supported by proper documentary evidences and there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transactions. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no dispute to the fact that the assessee had purchased the shares of ITA No.247/Ahd/2024 ... manipulative objective. Following this principle laid down by the Apex Court, there was nothing wrong in the Revenue’s doubt about the genuineness of the transaction, considering the volatile fluctuation in share price of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. The AO had issued a detailed show cause notice to the assessee

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

directed the assessee to produce the directors of the investing/subscribing companies in order to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and genuineness of this transactions. The AO thereafter noted that the assessee has failed to produce all the shareholders/directors of the investing companies with evidences as required ... producing all the details as requisitioned in the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act, the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and genuineness of the transactions could not be verified and hence the same was added as unexplained credit to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed

Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata 1St Floor, 134/1, M.G. Road, Vs Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. Pan: Aaccn 8291 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 19.07.2023 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. Issue Raised In Ground No. 2 To 5 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of Ao Wherein The Ao Has Made Addition Of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- On Account Of Share Capital / Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

directed the assessee to produce the directors of the investing/subscribing companies in order to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and genuineness of these transactions. The AO thereafter noted that the assessee has failed to produce all the shareholders/directors of the investing companies with evidences as required ... producing all the details as requisitioned in the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act, the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and genuineness of the transactions could not be verified and hence the same was added as unexplained credit to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that the payments made by the assessee for purchases have been withdrawn in cash by M/s. S.R. Sales Corporation create suspicion on the genuineness of the transactions, made the addition thereof. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), but failed to succeed. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee ... from the fact that the information was received from M/s. S.R. Sales Corporation by the ITO, (Inv.), HQ, Gurgaon about suspicion on the genuineness of the transactions. But surprisingly the information has been called from S.R. Sales Corporation only and the Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2013-14 & 2014-2015 Gillanders

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Quest Online, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68, held as under: “8.2. As per settled law, the initial onus is on the Assessee to establish by cogent evidence the genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the investors under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction ... money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking Section 68. If the Assessee

M/S Monk Akarshala Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4151/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Monk Akarshala Private Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 2(2)(1) 4116 Oberoi Garden Estate Room No. 545 Chandivli Vlg Farm Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Near Chandivli Studio, Saki Naka Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai City - 400072 Pan: Aagcm4703K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa & Ms. Manasi Vyas Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 234B

assessee company along with share premium. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that assessee has discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness of the transactions and capacity of the applicant as envisaged in section 68 of the Act. 28. It would be pertinent to refer to the decision ... Private Limited In view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the section 68 laid down by the Court namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on fact