Anup Industries v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2015 TaxPub(DT) 4513 (Jp-Trib)div class=Section1> Anup Industries v. ITO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Income from undisclosed sources--Addition under section 68Creditworthiness of Creditors--During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the unsecured loan received by assessee from CSS was not verifiable. The assessee filed confirmation of CSS but the AO was not satisfied with the confirmation filed by the assessee and made addition in the hands of assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. *Held:* The CIT(A) as well as AO concluded that the assessee had filed only confirmation. No evidence had been placed on record to prove the creditworthiness of alleged creditors. The receipt of money through banking channel was not sacrosanct. The AO was not able to locate the alleged creditors at the given address. Merely by filing confirmation, PAN, etc., was not sufficient to discharge the burden that lies on the assessee. The assessee had to prove the financial capacity of person to advance loan and genuineness of the transaction. The assessee had not cotroverted the finding given by the CIT(A) in his order. The CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition under section 68. Accordingly, same was upheld. Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 68 *Relied:*Union of India v. Settlement Commission, Bombay and CIT v. Empire Builtech (2014) 366 ITR 110 (Del) *REFERRED :* Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All), CIT v. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del), CIT v. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 35 (Del), CIT v. S.D. Investment & Trading Co. (2008) 306 ITR 31 (Bom), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC), Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2011) 62 DTR 25 (Del), Uphar Aloys (P) Ltd v. ITO (2013) 37 CCH 154 (Del), CIT v. Shree Barkha Synthetics (2003) 182 CTR 175 (Raj), Labhchand Bohra v. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj), Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj), CIT v. Orissa Credit Corp. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT v. P. Mohan Kala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del), MangilalJain v. ITO (2009) 315 ITR 105 (Mad), Banarsi Prasad v. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 239 (All), Shiv Rice & General Mills v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 19 (P&H), ACIT v. Vishwanath & Co. (200) 292 ITR 225 (Karn), Rakesh Kalia v. CIT (2006) 286 ITR 357 (Del), Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). FAVOUR : Against the assessee. A.Y. : 2003-04 IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2015 TaxPub(DT) 4513 (Jp-Trib)div class=Section1>

Anup Industries v. ITO

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Income from undisclosed sources--Addition under section 68Creditworthiness of Creditors--During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the unsecured loan received by assessee from CSS was not verifiable. The assessee filed confirmation of CSS but the AO was not satisfied with the confirmation filed by the assessee and made addition in the hands of assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. Held: The CIT(A) as well as AO concluded that the assessee had filed only confirmation. No evidence had been placed on record to prove the creditworthiness of alleged creditors. The receipt of money through banking channel was not sacrosanct. The AO was not able to locate the alleged creditors at the given address. Merely by filing confirmation, PAN, etc., was not sufficient to discharge the burden that lies on the assessee. The assessee had to prove the financial capacity of person to advance loan and genuineness of the transaction. The assessee had not cotroverted the finding given by the CIT(A) in his order. The CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition under section 68. Accordingly, same was upheld.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 68

Relied:Union of India v. Settlement Commission, Bombay and CIT v. Empire Builtech (2014) 366 ITR 110 (Del)

REFERRED : Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All), CIT v. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del), CIT v. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 35 (Del), CIT v. S.D. Investment & Trading Co. (2008) 306 ITR 31 (Bom), CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC), Mod Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2011) 62 DTR 25 (Del), Uphar Aloys (P) Ltd v. ITO (2013) 37 CCH 154 (Del), CIT v. Shree Barkha Synthetics (2003) 182 CTR 175 (Raj), Labhchand Bohra v. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj), Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj), CIT v. Orissa Credit Corp. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT v. P. Mohan Kala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del), MangilalJain v. ITO (2009) 315 ITR 105 (Mad), Banarsi Prasad v. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 239 (All), Shiv Rice & General Mills v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 19 (P&H), ACIT v. Vishwanath & Co. (200) 292 ITR 225 (Karn), Rakesh Kalia v. CIT (2006) 286 ITR 357 (Del), Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC).

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2003-04

IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH