Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1344 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - receipt of unsecured loans - discharge of onus by assessee - Held that:- The contention of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that there were huge deposits before withdrawal, is thus no longer a valid ground for making addition , because all the deposits are duly stands explained by the assessee. In our opinion, documents and evidences filed by the assessee, clearly establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as creditworthiness in respect of the loan from Smt. Sunita and the onus of the assessee is discharged. The findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of the creditor are without appreciation of all the evidences on record and thus we delete the addition made under section 68 of the Act in respect of the loan taken during the year from Smt. Sunita amounting to ₹ 98,80,000/-. For receipt from Sh. Virender Yadav Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has recorded that Sh Virender Yadav was not assessed to tax however the assessee has submitted PAN Card as identity, thus the identity of the creditor gets established, but the other two limbs of section 68 of the Act were not examined by the Assessing Officer as the creditor was not produced before the Assessing Officer. In view of the facts above, and in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the requirement of section 68 of the Act and pass speaking order on the issue after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee For receipt from Sh. Shiv Tej Singh creditor was not produced before the Assessing Officer even in the remand proceedings for verification of the requirement of section 68 of the Act. We find it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the requirement of section 68 in the case of loan from Sh Shiv Tejsingh and pass a speaking order on the issue after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide all necessary documentary evidence and produce the creditor for examination /cross-examination by the Assessing Officer. For receipt from Sh. Om Prakash - neither document in support of genuineness of the transaction has been produced by the assessee nor the creditor has been examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore in the interest of justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of requirement of section 68 of the Act in the case of the creditor and pass a speaking order on the issue in dispute after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide all necessary documentary evidence and produce the creditor for examination/cross-examination by the Assessing Officer. For receipt from Sh. Ramchander the documents filed by the assessee before the lower authorities and copy of which are submitted in the paper book, clearly manifest that the identity and genuineness of the transaction is established. As far as creditworthiness is concerned the source of money advanced, in the hands of the creditor has been duly explained, and therefore the assessee has discharged the onus casted upon him under section 68 of the Act and thus the addition deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the addition made under section 68 For receipt from Sh. Chandan Singh the assessee has filed all the documents establishing identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness in respect of the Sh. Chandan Singh. The source of money advanced to the assessee is appearing as received through banking channel and no cash deposits as mentioned by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are observed in the bank statement. Thus findings of the ld CIT(A) in respect of the creditor are without proper appreciation of the evidences. Assessee has discharged the onus casted upon him under section 68 of the Act in respect of credit from Sh. Chandan Singh and the addition made deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the addition under section 68 Receipt from Sh. Amar Singh in view of the above documents, which were furnished before the authorities below and copy of which is submitted in paper book before us, we are of the opinion that the identity, and genuineness of the transaction is duly explained in respect of credit from Sh. Amar Singh. The observation of the learned CIT(A) that there were huge deposits in the bank account of Sh. Amar Singh is not relevant as far as the impugned transaction is concerned. As regard to creditworthiness is concerned that is also duly explained from the award of Land Acquisition Officer received by Sh Amar Singh and the credit was extended to the assessee out of the said sum of award. Thus in our view, the assessee has discharged its onus casted upon as per the requirement of section 68 Receipt from Sh. Harpreet Singh identity of the Sh Harpreet Singh was though established, but identity of Sh Daksh singh and copy of bank statement of the creditor indicating the said loan or advance to the assessee has not been filed. Further, no documents in support of creditworthiness of Sh. Dakshsingh have been filed, therefore in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness and decide the issue in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary documents in support as required to discharge onus casted upon under section 68 of the Act in respect of the said advance. Accordingly the addition in the respect of Sri Harpreet Singh is allowed for statistical purposes. Computation of tax liability in demand notice issued - Held that:- As counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer erroneously included a sum of ₹ 3,62,00,441/-instead of ₹ 3,28,23,704/- while computing the income of the assessee in the computation form. Further the Ld. counsel also submitted that in the computation form the Assessing Officer also included a sum of ₹ 1,48,180/- being the short-term capital gain whereas the assessee had set off the brought forward short-term capital loss and after adjustment, a sum of ₹ 23,842/-was carried forward. The Ld. senior departmental representative on the other hand submitted that these issues are of verification by the Assessing Officer and could have been disposed by way of filing rectification before the Assessing Officer. In our view, the issues are in the nature of mistake apparent from the record and therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claims of the assessee and disposed of them in accordance with law. The ground of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose
|