2012 (3) TMI 541 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained loan - Held that - It was for the assessing Officer to find out whether really the aforesaid 37 persons have lent loan to the Company or not and when the accounts reflects the same as loan received though the account payee cheque such transaction cannot be doubted. Since this aspect has not been considered by the assessing Authority. Revisional Authority as well as the learned Single Judge we have no other option than to set-aside the order passed by all the authorities and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging legality and correctness of order passed by single Judge; consideration of borrowing made by appellant; reflection of loan in books of accounts of alleged creditors; error by authorities in assessment.

Analysis:
The appellant, a company assessed for income tax for the year 2003-04, filed a return declaring a loss. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order determining the income, which the appellant challenged through revision and a writ petition. The main contention was that the assessing officer did not consider the borrowing made by the appellant through cheques, as the lenders did not reflect the loans in their books of accounts. The appellant argued that it is for the authority to consider the source of income and pass an appropriate order. The respondent contended that the alleged creditors were family members of the managing director, and the money lent to the appellant was not reflected in their books of accounts.

The key issue before the court was whether the authorities had erred in not considering the borrowing made by the appellant and the reflection of the loan in the accounts. The appellant claimed to have borrowed from 37 persons through account payee cheques, which were reflected in its accounts. The court emphasized that the assessing officer should have issued notices to the creditors to verify the payments. The respondent argued that the 37 persons had borrowed from a bank, but the court held that it did not affect the appellant as long as the amount was treated as a loan from them.

The court found that the assessing officer, revisional authority, and single judge had not considered whether the 37 persons had actually lent the loan to the company, despite it being reflected in the accounts. As this crucial aspect was overlooked, the court set aside the previous orders and remanded the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, highlighting the importance of proper verification and consideration of all relevant evidence in income tax assessments.