9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 887 - AT - Income TaxAdditions made u/s 68 - credit entry in the assessee s bank account - cancellation of booking of flat - Held that - All the necessary papers and confirmations in this regard have been produced by the assessee and in the remand report, the AO has also not drawn any adverse inference in this regard - thus in these circumstances, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) - hence addition is deleted - Decided in favor of assessee. Additions made u/s 68 on account of repayment of loan and credit entry in assessee s bank account - Held that - Assessee has received the said amount from Shri Raj Basantani - the source of the receipt has been submitted to be the bank statement of Shri Raj Basantani who had been summoned u/s 131 and had confirmed the transaction. It has been explained by Shri Raj Basantani that he had received a loan of ₹ 5,93,66,151/- from the assessee in the past which has now been repaid. The source of the original assessee s loan to Shri Raj Basantani has been submitted to be maturity of the fixed deposits in the Indian bank. All the necessary papers and documents have been found by the AO - thus we find no infirmity in the direction of the CIT(A) to delete the said addition - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?2,02,72,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of ?1,20,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Addition of ?2,70,94,481/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Addition of ?1,30,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?2,02,72,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The Assessing Officer (AO) noted a credit of ?2,02,72,000/- in the assessee's bank account, which was claimed to be a loan repayment from Shri Raj Basantani. The AO did not accept the explanation due to lack of supporting documents such as PAN, return of income, and bank details of Shri Raj Basantani. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] examined the remand report and found that the amount was indeed a repayment of a loan given by the assessee to Shri Raj Basantani, supported by bank statements and confirmation from Basantani. The CIT(A) thus deleted the addition, which was upheld by the Tribunal, noting no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. 2. Addition of ?1,20,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The AO observed a credit of ?1,20,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account, claimed to be received from Shahrukh Khan and Gauri Khan upon cancellation of a flat booking. Despite confirmations from the parties involved, the AO doubted the nature of the receipt due to lack of corroborative evidence. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the explanation, noting that the source of the amount was established and the transaction was of a capital nature, not resulting in any profit for the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition. 3. Addition of ?2,70,94,481/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The AO reopened the assessment for the year 2003-04 due to unexplained credits totaling ?2,70,94,481/- in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed these were repayments of loans given to Shri Raj Basantani. The AO, however, could not verify the identity and creditworthiness of Basantani. The CIT(A), upon remand, found that the transactions were confirmed by bank statements and Basantani's statement on oath, establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the deletion of the addition. 4. Addition of ?1,30,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The AO reopened the assessment for the year 2004-05 due to unexplained credits totaling ?1,30,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account. The assessee explained that ?55,00,000/- was received from Trambak Polypack Pvt. Ltd. upon cancellation of a flat booking, and ?75,00,000/- was a loan repayment from Fresh Leasing and Finance Ltd. The AO did not accept these explanations due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A), upon remand, found that the transactions were confirmed by the respective parties and bank statements. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the deletion of the addition. Conclusion: In all the appeals, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the evidence and facts of the case, leading to the deletion of the respective additions made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
|
