Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Income Tax Officer, Ward 16 (4) , New Delhi Versus Turner Builders & Promoters (P) Ltd.

2016 (6) TMI 41 - ITAT DELHI

Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- From bare perusal of the observations made by CIT(A) it is evident that he has not at all examined the creditworthiness of the lender particularly with reference to the documents showing agricultural holding and produce thereon. Ld. CIT(A) has not given any cogent reasons for confirming the addition to the extent of ₹ 1,15,000/-. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances and the detailed documents submitted by lender, we are of the opinion that the 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

Aslam. He observed that in response to notice u/s 133(6), which were received back it transpired that there was no such person. Assessee also could not produce them before the AO. Accordingly, addition of ₹ 50,000/- was made, which was confirmed by CIT(A).After hearing both the parties we do not find any reason to interfere on this count as the assessee miserably failed to explain the basic three ingredients in respect of these three loans. In the result, this ground is dismissed against 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

the case are that the assessee company, in the relevant assessment year was engaged in the business of real estate. It had filed its return of income declaring income at ₹ 50,797/-. The assessment was made at a total income of ₹ 56,21,040/- after making following additions: (a) On account of unexplained U. Loans u/s 68 ₹ 37,90,000/- (b) Value of plot not fully disclosed ₹ 17,50,000/- (c) Source of stamp duty being unexplained ₹ 30,240/- ₹ 56,21,037/- Rounded .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the AO u/s 68 of IT Act 1961, in respect of creditors namely Ms Ranjana Chawla (Rs. 1,00,000)/ Mr. Mangat Ram (Rs. 3,00,000), Mr. Satish Kumar (Rs. 2,00,000), Mr. Sardari Lal Maggo (Rs. 4,00,000), Mr. Bihari Lal (Rs. 5,00,000), & Sh. Ashosk Kumar (Rs. 1,15,000) aggregating to ₹ 16,15,000/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fructuous. 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. There is no dispute that as far as the department s appeal is concerned, the same is to be dismissed in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 stipulating that no departmental appeal, involving tax effect below ₹ 10 lakhs, shall be filed before the ITAT. Para 10 of the Circular specifies that such instruction would apply retrospectively and the pending appeals below the specified tax limit of ₹ 10 lakh .....

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 is an irrelevant consideration that cross objector had originally not filed any appeal. Therefore, mere dismissal of department s appeal does not result into making the cross objection infructuous and the same has to be disposed of as an appeal. We, accordingly, proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 10. The assessee has taken following grounds of cross objection: 1. That both the lower authorities grossly erred in law as well as on merit in making and confirming additions u/s 68 of the I.T. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

loan of ₹ 1,50,000/- from Atul Katyal. The AO has observed that from the replies received to notice u/s 133(6) it transpired that cash of ₹ 1 lakh was deposited in the bank a/c of this vendor before issuing cheque to assessee company. He observed that Shri Atul Katyal is a petty cloth seller (pheriwala), selling clothes in villages. He was also stated to have been earning between ₹ 5000/- to ₹ 6000/- per month. 12. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee explained as under: First .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

plained the source which remains unrebutted. Fourthly, on the basis of following documents furnished to the AO, the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity stands proved. Fifthly, the AO has not proved that the cash deposited in the bank is the money provided by the-assessee. Copy of statement. Confirmed ledger account. Confirmation. Relevant Bank statement. Voter ID card. Without prejudice, statement was recorded on 18.12.2008 and the Asstt. Order is also dtd. 18.12.08 and it was never conf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

contained at page 106 of PB, bank a/c is also contained at pages 108-109 of the PB. 15. A bare perusal of the findings recorded by both the lower revenue authorities clearly shows that the submissions made by assessee have not at all been considered including the availability of opening balance of ₹ 44,090/- as on 1.4.2005. The lender submitted all the evidences and confirmed the giving of loan. The assessee had also pointed out that the cash deposit was only ₹ 10,000/- and not ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssuing cheques of loan to the assessee company. The assessee s submission was that Ashok Kumar was owning 6 acres of agriculture land and a small kiryana store. The AO observed that it is hard to comprehend that such small farmers, residing in a a far off village or doing petty businesses were advancing money interest free and without any other benefit to a company engaged in real estate business with sole motto of earning profits. He pointed out that the creditworthiness was not established. 17 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eding cash deposit in the bank is only ₹ 1,49,000/- (Rs. 54,0001- + ₹ 46,0001- + ₹ 49,0001-). The source of this cash stands explained in the statement. Source is income from general merchant shop and 6 acre agricultural land. He also admitted for not opening any bank account earlier (it was opened only on 16.03.2005 for the first time). Thus, the old savings out of income were being kept only with him. Thirdly, the AO has not proved that the source of cash deposit is assessee. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5.2 It is seen from the account copy, the amount received during the financial year relevant for A. Y. was only ₹ 1,50,000/-. Hence the addition, if at all to be made, is only ₹ 1,50,000/-. I am in agreement with the contention of the AR in this regard. As seen from the details furnished, there is no proper sources for lending money, though he had confirmed the advance in the statement recorded. On careful consideration of the material available on record, the amount of ₹ 1,50, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version