2007 (7) TMI 701 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the loans received by the appellant from Shri D.K. Sanghvi and M/s.Aqua Trade should be treated as undisclosed income of the appellant.

Loan from Shri D.K. Sanghvi:
The appellant-assessee received a loan of &8377; 25,000 from Shri D.K. Sanghvi. The Tribunal treated this loan as undisclosed income of the appellant on the ground that Shri D.K. Sanghvi was not assessed to income tax. However, the confirmation letter of Shri D.K. Sanghvi was submitted during the assessment proceedings, and the veracity of the letter was not questioned. Additionally, the loans were transacted through account payee crossed cheques, and the appellant offered to produce the broker involved in raising the loans. The High Court held that the non-assessment of Shri D.K. Sanghvi to tax alone was not sufficient to justify treating the loan as undisclosed income. Therefore, the addition of &8377; 25,000 from Shri D.K. Sanghvi was not upheld, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.

Loan from M/s.Aqua Trade:
Similarly, the appellant received a loan of &8377; 25,000 from M/s.Aqua Trade, which was also treated as undisclosed income by the Tribunal due to M/s.Aqua Trade not being assessed to income tax. However, the High Court found that the confirmation letter from M/s.Aqua Trade was not questioned, and the transactions were conducted through cheques. The appellant had also provided details of the broker involved in securing the loans. The Court held that the non-assessment of M/s.Aqua Trade to tax was not sufficient to justify treating the loan as undisclosed income. Consequently, the addition of &8377; 25,000 from M/s.Aqua Trade was not sustained, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court held that the additions of &8377; 50,000 in total from both Shri D.K. Sanghvi and M/s.Aqua Trade could not be justified solely on the grounds that the cash creditors were not assessed to tax. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the loans received through proper channels with supporting documentation should not be considered as undisclosed income. The appeal was allowed with no costs imposed on the appellant.