9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 55 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unsecured loans - confirmation was not provided as lender was expired - HELD THAT - Subject loan from Shri Paras Ram Khatri and Vineet Poddar was taken in the assessment year 2010-11, and the revenue has not rebutted the submissions. Moreover, Ld. CIT(A) recorded the fact that bank statement was enclosed to prove that the money was credited into the bank account on 14.9.2007. In respect of loan of ₹ 5,25,000/-, it is stated that the amount was received during the year under consideration by way of account payee cheque but the confirmation could not be obtained due to untimely demise of the lender. Hence, looking to the peculiarity of the facts and more particularly when the A.O. has not made any enquiry regarding demise of the lender and the money credited in the account during the assessment year 2010-11 as claimed by the assessee. The issue is restored back to the A.O. to decide it afresh after making proper enquiry. The assessee would cooperate in the proceedings before the A.O. The grounds raised in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Addition made under section 68 of the IT Act for unsecured loans. 2. Failure to obtain confirmation for loans due to various reasons. 3. Disallowance of expenditure related to car, telephone, and mobile. 4. Appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Addition made under section 68 of the IT Act for unsecured loans The appellant challenged the addition of ?25,75,000 under section 68 of the IT Act, arguing that the loans from Shri Paras Ram Khatri and Shri Vineet Poddar were taken during the assessment year 2010-11, not the subject year. The Ld. CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, confirming the addition of ?25,75,000 made under section 68 of the Act. The appellant contended that the cash credits amounting to ?20 lakhs were taken on 13.9.2007 and provided details of the lender, who could not confirm the transaction due to a civil suit. Regarding the loan from SardarMal Jain, the appellant received ?5,25,000 through RTGS, but the confirmation could not be obtained as the lender had passed away. Issue 2: Failure to obtain confirmation for loans due to various reasons The appellant faced challenges in obtaining confirmations for loans due to different circumstances, such as the lender being involved in a civil suit, the lender being deceased, and the notice being returned as "expired." The Ld. CIT(A) noted the peculiarity of the facts and directed the issue to be restored back to the A.O. for proper enquiry, emphasizing that the A.O. had not investigated the demise of the lender or the money credited during the relevant assessment year. Issue 3: Disallowance of expenditure related to car, telephone, and mobile The Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure related to car, telephone, and mobile, resulting in additions to the appellant's income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted these additions, except for the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act. The appellant's appeal before the Tribunal focused on challenging the addition under section 68. Issue 4: Appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act The appellant appealed before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of ?25,75,000 made under section 68 of the IT Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the issue to be reexamined by the A.O. after proper enquiry, emphasizing the need for cooperation from the appellant during the proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of thorough investigations into the circumstances surrounding unsecured loans and the necessity for proper verification of transactions to ensure compliance with the IT Act.
|
