Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 422 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained credit u/s 68 - CIT(A)deleted the addition - Held that - The order of the CIT (A) is quite elaborate one as it dealt with the statement recorded by the Revenue and Mr. Haresh V. Malani on 24.11.2010, dealt with identity of Mr. Haresh V. Malani, the alleged creditor in this case. Undisputedly, CIT (A) has also addressed how Mr. Haresh V. Malani has liability of Rs 1.08 cr to pay to the assessee, how he has creditworthiness by virtue of huge transactions appearing in his bank account etc. Case of the Revenue that the assessee needs to explain the source of the funds deposited in the bank account of Mr. Haresh V. Malani, who merely repaid the liability with assessee is not sustainable in law. The facts suggest that Sri Haresh Malani merely repaid the alleged sum out of the bank balance. Thus with the confirmation filed giving particulars of the sources of income of the payer of Rs 20 lakhs, the assessee discharged his part of the onus. Mr Haresh Confirmed the payment of the sum of Rs 20 lakhs as part of repayment of Rs 1.08 cr. If necessary, the AO should have initiated proceedings against Sri Haresh V Malani instead - order of CIT (A) is reasonable. Against revenue.
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as unexplained credit u/s 68 by CIT (A). Analysis: Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as unexplained credit u/s 68 by CIT (A) The appeal filed by the Revenue was against the order of CIT (A) for the assessment year 2003-2004, where the Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as unexplained credit u/s 68. The facts revealed that the assessee had filed a return declaring a total loss of Rs. 7,48,177, with the assessment determining a total income of Rs. 12,51,820. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 20 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act, which was confirmed by CIT (A) in the first round. However, the ITAT set aside the issue for further examination. The CIT (A) later deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, citing the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the buyer, Mr. Haresh V. Malani. The Revenue contended that the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 20 lakhs in Mr. Malani's account was unexplained, making the transactions non-genuine. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the repayment of Rs. 20 lakhs was part of a larger transaction with Mr. Malani and that the onus was on the AO to prove the source of the credit. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) had thoroughly examined the matter, including Mr. Malani's statement and bank transactions, and concluded that the addition made by the AO was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in the case and provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning behind the decision.
|