S. 68 : Cash credits-lenders are assessed to tax-Confirmation was filed-Interest was paid ,TDS was deducted-Notice issued u/s. 133(6) were acknowledged – Order of Tribunal deletion of addition was affirmed-Court observed that the Assessing officer should have desisted from using the general observation and expression “money Laundering” when it was never the case that there was any allegations of money laundering. [S. 133(6)]

Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, the Court held that the Assessee has discharged the burden by filling confirmation letters, balance sheet and reply to notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act. Court also held that the observation of the Assessing Officer that merely filing PAN details, balance sheet does not absolve the assessee from his responsibility of proving the nature of transactions is not valid in law . Court objected the general observation of the Assessing Officer such as paper companies and the expression “money Laundering” is held to be uncalled for as the allegation of money laundering is a very serious allegations and effect of case of money laundering under the relevant Act is markedly different . The Assessing officer should have desisted from using such expression when it was never the case that there was any allegations of money laundering. (ITA No 18 of 2022 dt 14-7-2022). (AY .2015 -16 )
PCIT v. Sreeleathers (Cal.)( HC) www.itatonline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bivas Pattanayak]