Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 36 (1) , New Delhi Versus Smt. Usha Kapoor and Vica-Versa

2016 (3) TMI 819 - ITAT DELHI

Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) delted the addition - Held that:- AO without making any enquiry and without bringing any material on record to the contrary, was not justified in rejecting the evidence filed by the assessee and adding back the amount of the unsecured loans to the income of the assessee. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 2,21,50,000/- on this account was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing a well reasoned order, which in our opinion, does not need any interference on our par .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of the Ld. CIT(A) of deletion of addition, relating to unsecured loans raised during the year which have been held as explained and the addition of unsecured loans was deleted. Therefore, interest amounting to ₹ 9,99,175/- was allowable to the assessee. Hence, the addition on this account was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1949/Del/2012, CROSS OBJECTION NO. 224/Del/2012 - Dated:- 15-2-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of ₹ 2.21 Crores under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 3. The Revenue further raised the following additional grounds on 10.7.2013: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of interest of ₹ 9,99,175/- debited to P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d upon the assessee. Later on notice u/s. 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued. In response to the notice, Ld. AR of the Assessee attended the assessment proceedings and filed necessary details. After consdiering the documents, the AO determined the income of the assessee at ₹ 3,25,77,242/- by making various additions vide order dated 31.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer dated 31.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3), a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. In connection with addition of ₹ 2,21,50,000/- is concerned, it was the main contention of the Ld. DR that assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions by way of adducing any corroborative evidence and therefore, the AO has rightly held that initial onus cast upon the assessee has not been satisfactorily discharged, hence, the addition was rightly made by the AO and may be upheld accordingly. 7.2 On the other h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e. He further stated that AO is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/ subscriber, the genuineness of the transactions and the veracity. In order to support his contention, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has filed a Paper Book having pages 1 to 30 containing the copies of the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. [2015] 64 Taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) High Court of Delhi ii) CIT-IV vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d precedents relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned Order and the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, as aforesaid. With regard to issue relating to deletion of addition of ₹ 2,21,50,000/- made under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is concerned, we find that the reason under which the A.O. has added back the amount of unsecured loans from the three creditors to the income of the assessee is that there were cash deposits in their bank accounts, out of which various p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ited balance sheet and P&L account and also Form 3CD in case of Avinash Lal Sachdeva and Soma Rani) of all the three creditors were also filed to prove their creditworthiness. Further, in the case of Mrs. Soma Rani a copy of her ITR for A.Y. 2007-08 along with a copy of the assessment order u/s 143(3) for the same year was also filed. Similarly, in the case of Mrs. Preeti Sachdeva a copy of her ITR for the Assessment Year 2006-07 was also filed. In his remand report the AO has stated that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it has also been filed by the AR of the assessee to this effect. Keeping in view this situation, it was held by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing this evidence before the AO and the documentary evidence filed by the assessee being relevant to the grounds of appeal, which was rightly admitted by the Ld. CIT(A). 8.2 We observe that from the audited accounts of all the three creditors, duly signed by the relevant creditor and his CAs, it was seen that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the A.O. even after the copies of audited accounts were forwarded to him. So nothing has been brought on record by the A.O. to show that these audited accounts are false or fabricated. Further, no enquiries have been made from the creditors, in spite of the information about them being available on record. Therefore, without conducting any inquiry and without bringing any material on record, the documentary evidence filed by the assessee cannot be rejected. In view of the above, we note that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he contrary, was not justified in rejecting the evidence filed by the assessee and adding back the amount of the unsecured loans to the income of the assessee. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 2,21,50,000/- on this account was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing a well reasoned order, which in our opinion, does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 9. Apropos additional ground .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f ₹ 9,99,175/- was disallowed on the unsecured loan raised during the year on the ground that same were disallowed u/s. 68 of the Act. The balance amount of ₹ 19,97,500/- was disallowed by observing that the assessee has debited its income and expenditure account by interest component towards liabilities, whereas no income has been shown from investment and loan and advances given. Therefore, he stated that the balance interest amount was rightly disallowed by the AO on the ground th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version