S.S. Viswanethra Ravi ORDER
Inturi Rama Rao, Member (A)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Pune (hereinafter referred as "ld. CIT(A)") dated 23.03.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, who engaged in the business of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Scrap Material. The return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 was filed on 27.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 40,37,896/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the DCIT, Circle - 8, Pune (hereinafter referred as "the Assessing Officer") vide order dated 19.01.2015 at a total income of Rs. 2,80,30,920/- after making addition of Rs. 16,40,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred as "the Act").
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the above addition is as under:
During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had received unsecured loans from the following persons as set out by the Assessing Officer vide Para 9 of the assessment order which reads as under:
During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant had filed details of the above sundry creditors such as names, addresses, PAN Numbers etc. Based on the details filed, the Assessing Officer had examined two sundry creditors by issuing summons u/s. 131 of the Act, namely, Tayal Sunil Subhash and Naresh Goverdhandas Agarwal, who confirmed that they given the loans to the appellant company. Based on the information filed by the appellant, the Assessing Officer had made an analysis of each loan received by the assessee and come to a conclusion that the creditors had no independent source of income to give huge loans to the appellant and source of funds for giving loan to the appellant is explained to the amounts received from the relatives. Accordingly, concluded that the creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions was not proved, therefore, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the sundry credits as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order had deleted the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs received from Smt. Deepibai Amrutlal Choudhary by holding that the amount represents opening balance. In respect of other credits received, he confirmed the addition by citing that the creditworthiness of the creditors was not proved.
5. On the other hand, the ld. CIT D.R. placed reliance on the order of ld. CIT(A).
6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal refers to the unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. The onus lies upon the assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer as to identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the credits received during the year under consideration. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the appellant had failed to file the details establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the credit transactions during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer has merely disbelieved the evidence produced before him and concluded that the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions was not proved.
7. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant had filed the full details of sundry creditors from whom he had received loans during the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) without adverting to the evidence filed before him, had simply concluded that the creditworth........