Hitender Pal Singh vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

The assessee submitted all the documents in support of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. However, the Assessing Officer merely made addition without any evidence in support of his claim. Once the assessee filed all the documents, the burden of proof shifted on the Revenue and if the Revenue was unable to carry out inquiry even after request of the assessee to summon the creditors, the Assessing Officer failed to discharge his burden of proof and unable to establish that the credit of the deposit of Rs. 14,55,575/- in the bank account was from undisclosed sources. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (supra) has held as under:

13. In this case, the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under s. 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do anything further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the burden that lay on him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises.

In view of the above, we reverse the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) on the issue in dispute and hold that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Accordingly, we allow these grounds of the assessee