9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 423 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Held that - The assessee has submitted correct PAN of all the depositors. He has also submitted confirmation from all these depositors. In the case of M.S. Jewellers, which is a proprietory concern of Satya Prakash Khandelwal, it is noticed that the amount of ₹ 50000/- were received by cheque. The assessee submitted PAN and confirmation of the depositor alongwith full address. It is also noticed from the account of the depositor that there was a opening balance of ₹ 3,54,000/-. Thus, the amount of ₹ 50,000/- received by the assessee by cheque was actually return of balance outstanding with M.S. Jewellers, proprietory concern of Satya Prakash Khandelwal, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition. Disallowance of interest paid by the assessee to the deposits - Held that - Since the addition made U/s 68 of the Act on which, interest was paid by the assessee has been deleted. Since the depositors had been found genuine, therefore, in consequence of that the payments of interest on this deposit is also held to be genuine. Hence, this ground of assessee s appeal is also allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the addition of ?15,07,240/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Sustaining the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee amounting to ?2,02,673/-. 3. Confirming the addition of ?38,315/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Sustaining the addition of ?15,07,240/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee contested the addition of ?15,07,240/- under Section 68, arguing that confirmations, PAN details, and other supporting documents were provided for all depositors. The ITAT observed that the assessee had submitted correct PANs, confirmations, and bank statements for the depositors. Specific cases were analyzed: - M.S. Jewellers: The amount of ?50,000/- was received by cheque, with PAN and confirmation provided. The transaction was a return of balance, thus the addition was unjustified. - Rishab Marble: Full address, PAN, confirmation, and bank statements were provided. The transaction was through banking channels, establishing the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the depositor. - Pushpa Jalan, Saloni Hansaria, Ashok Hansaria, Sita Ram Gupta, Rajat Medical and Provision, Radha Mohan Gupta, Govind Ram, Giriraj Agarwal, Amit Kumar Sanan, Neelam Kasat, Pushpa Holani, Ram Babu Gupta, Krishna Bright Metal Ind.: In each case, the assessee provided full address, PAN, confirmation, and bank statements. Transactions were through cheques, and the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the depositors were established. The ITAT cited several case laws supporting the assessee's position, including: - Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO: Once the existence of creditors is proved, the assessee's onus is discharged. - Kanhaiya Lal Jangid Vs CIT: The burden does not extend to proving the source of the creditor’s funds. - Asstt.CIT Vs. Swami Complex (P) Ltd.: The AO must verify confirmations before adding cash credits. - Prem Lata Sharma Vs. ITO: Confirmations and PAN were sufficient to delete the addition. Based on these observations, the ITAT deleted the addition under Section 68, allowing this ground of the assessee’s appeal. 2. Sustaining the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee amounting to ?2,02,673/-: The ITAT noted that since the addition under Section 68 was deleted, the interest paid on these deposits was genuine. Consequently, the disallowance of ?2,02,673/- was unjustified, and this ground of the assessee’s appeal was allowed. 3. Confirming the addition of ?38,315/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act: The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated upon this ground raised by the assessee. Due to the lack of a decision by the CIT(A), this ground was dismissed. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the ITAT deleting the addition under Section 68 and the disallowance of interest, while dismissing the ground related to Section 69C due to non-adjudication by the CIT(A). The order was pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2017.
|
