Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
Sai University Act, 2018
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Affection Investments Ltd. [Alongwith ... on 19 February, 2003
out of the unsecured loans. The assessee is seen to have repaid most of the
loans, however, availed a new loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Mr. Hanif H.
Malpekar. Thus showing the closing balance for unsecured loan outstanding
at Rs.2,00,000/-. The assessee was requested to furnish ledgers of all
parties from/to which unsecured loans were availed/ repaid during the
year. But the assessee could not establish the identity & genuineness of
transaction of loan availed from Hanif H. Malpekar to the extent of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The assessee was requested to provide, income tax returns
filed by all parties, bank statements, copy of PAN to enable this office to
ascertain the worthiness of above transactions. In view of the above, it is
found that the assessee has failed to produce and prove the identity and
creditworthiness of the persons and has also failed to discharge the onus on
him to prove the genuineness of the transaction, identity and
creditworthiness of the persons. It would be appropriate to quote pertinent
judgments to throw some clarifying light. "In a recent Judgment, Honorable
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd.
ITA 9011/2010 dated August 2, 2010 (2010) 6 84 (delhi) held that though in
Section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee, yet
he once proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either
furnishing their PAN or Income Tax assessment no./ITR and shows the
genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by way of
account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode than the onus of
proof would shift to the revenue.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Perala Govinda Rajulu And Ors. vs Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 22 December, 1994
In A.Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT, [1958] 34
ITR 807 (SC), it was held that it is not necessary for the department to
adduce evidence to show from which sources the income was derived and as
4
ITA Nos.264 & 23/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17
to why it should be treated as undisclosed income. If the assessee fails to
prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received
through the accounting year, the AO is entitled to draw an inference that the
receipts are of an assessable nature. Therefore, the burden of proving the
source of such income is on the assessee. The assessee besides given ample
time and opportunity, has failed to establish the credentials of the parties.
Further the assessee could not produce any details of income and bank
account statements of these parties. In view of the above, it is found that the
assessee has failed to produce and prove the identity and creditworthiness
of the persons and has also failed to discharge the onus on him to prove the
genuineness of the transaction, identity and creditworthiness of the persons.
Therefore, the undersigned is compelled to treat the same as bogus and
adds the same amount as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act
1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment
of income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-
Section 274 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 2013
The Finance Act, 2018
1