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 - 2022 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (6) TMI 661 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 87,354/- on the loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The assessee contested the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had received information regarding bogus loans and accommodation entries from certain groups. Based on this information, the A.O. believed that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, leading to the issuance of the notice under Section 148. The assessee argued that all necessary details were provided, and the reopening was unjustified. However, this issue was left open as the appeal was decided on merits.

2. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- Under Section 68:
The A.O. added Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, citing that the loan from M/s Maniprabha Impex Pvt. Ltd. was bogus. The assessee provided various documents to substantiate the genuineness of the loan, including bank statements, loan confirmations, and financial statements. The A.O. issued a notice under Section 133(6) to the loan creditor, which returned unserved. The assessee argued that the loan was genuine, supported by RTGS transactions and interest payments via cheque. The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision, but the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof by providing sufficient evidence of the loan's genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3. Disallowance of Interest Expenses of Rs. 87,354/-:
The A.O. disallowed the interest expenses on the grounds that the loan itself was bogus. The assessee contended that the interest was paid through account payee cheques, and the loan was genuine. Since the Tribunal directed the deletion of the loan addition, it also allowed the interest claim of Rs. 87,354/-, directing the A.O. to delete the disallowance.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition under Section 68 and the disallowance of interest expenses. The validity of the reassessment proceedings was left open as the appeal was decided on merits. The decision applied mutatis mutandis to other related appeals with identical facts and circumstances. All four appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates