Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (9) TMI 1135 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition towards unsecured loans amounting to ?1,18,00,000/-.
2. Classification of business income as income from other sources.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition towards Unsecured Loans:

The first issue revolves around whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in deleting the addition of ?1,18,00,000/- towards unsecured loans. The assessee, an individual, declared unsecured loans from four parties: Arabian Sea Food (?78,00,000/-), Shatrunjaya Estate Pvt Ltd (?20,00,000/-), Nikita M Gogar (?10,00,000/-), and Usha J Chauhan (?10,00,000/-). The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of these loans.

- Arabian Sea Food: The AO noted that the entity had returned a loss of ?9,75,086/- and concluded it lacked the creditworthiness to advance the loan. The assessee failed to produce the party for examination, leading the AO to add ?78,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit.

- Shatrunjaya Estate Pvt Ltd: Similar to Arabian Sea Food, the AO added ?20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit due to doubts about the creditworthiness.

- Nikita M Gogar: The AO observed a deposit and subsequent loan transaction in her bank statement and rejected her affidavit, adding ?10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit.

- Usha J Chauhan: The AO noted similar bank transactions and rejected her affidavit, adding ?10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit.

The CIT(A) deleted these additions, noting that the assessee provided PAN, loan confirmations, return copies, and bank passbooks. The CIT(A) emphasized that the loans were repaid, and the transactions were through account payee cheques. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, stating that the AO failed to use statutory powers to verify the creditors and relied on mere surmise and conjecture. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of ?1,18,00,000/-.

2. Classification of Business Income as Income from Other Sources:

The second issue concerns the AO's classification of the assessee’s business income as income from other sources. The assessee declared net business income of ?2,20,20,125/- (gross receipts of ?2,57,79,500/- minus direct expenditure of ?37,59,375/-). The AO assessed this as income from other sources, arguing that the assessee failed to prove the list of parties from whom the sums were received.

The Tribunal noted that the AO acknowledged the assessee’s business activities and that the depreciation on assets was allowed in subsequent years. The Tribunal found that the assessee consistently declared business income in previous years and that the CIT(A) accepted the nature of the business in subsequent assessments. Thus, the Tribunal directed the AO to treat the net income of ?2,20,20,125/- as business income, allowing the assessee’s cross-objections.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal and allowed the assessee’s cross-objections, upholding the deletion of the addition towards unsecured loans and directing the classification of the income as business income. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2019.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates