9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Ahmedabad [ CIT(A) in short] dated 18/11/2010 and 18/10/2010 pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Since identical grounds have been raised in both these appeals by the assessee, therefore these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the Assessee s appeal in IT(ss)A No.19/Ahd/2011 for AY 2006-07 as a lead case. The Assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in Confirming the addition of ₹ 17,87,000/- of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 which is requested to be quashed. 2.1. Briefly stated facts are that a search action u/s.132(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was carried out in the case of Neptune Group of Cases by the ITO Investigations, Unit-1, Ahmedabad. Subsequently, the assessment u/s.153A(1)(b) r. W. S.144 of the Act was framed vie order dated 31/12/2008. While framing the assessment, the AO made addition on account of unexplained cash credit amounting to R.17,87,000/-. Against the assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame back to Ahmedabad after completion of party work assigned to him, he was asked by the staff to give the copy of such order for taking necessary actions like appeal etc. At that time, the Director noticed that such order is not in his bag. Director Mr. Bholabhai V. Patel immediately called to Delhi Office staff to find such order but the same could not be found by the staff members of the party. When he visited Delhi Office thereafter, he verified all the bunches of the party literatures and documents and found the order between them. He immediately sent such order at Ahmedabad to the company office but meanwhile the time limit of 60 days was already been completed. Due to the above reason, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time of 60 days after receipt of the order from CIT(A) s office. This is a bona fide reason due to which there has been a little delay of around 18 days in filing of the appeal before ITAT, Ahmedabad. There was no intention on the part of the company of making the delay in filing of the appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that considering the above, humbly request the Hon ble Bench of ITAT to condone the delay in filing of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee are correct and if the same are found correct then addition of ₹ 16,87,000/- in respect of the two parties namely Mangaldeep Developers Pvt. Ltd. Mangal Sagar Associates Developers Pvt. Ltd. are to be deleted and the addition in respect of Mr. Popatlal B. Patel amounting to ₹ 1,00,000/- being the fresh credit introduced during the year under consideration was confirmed. 05.Here, learned CIT(A) failed to pass the speaking order due to the fact that he has not mentioned as to why the unsecured loan amounting to ₹ 1,00,000/- in respect of Popatlal B. Patel is unexplained and why the such addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. 06. While confirming such addition in respect of Popatlal B. Patel the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the following documents which were submitted vide submission dated 16/11/2010. Sr. No. Document submitted Remark 6.1. Return of Income PAN Revealing the fact that the assessee has been having the adequate identity, Income Tax Return Filer and being assessed to tax. 6.2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir confirmation and their bank statement which established their creditability. 10. Gujarat High Court - CIT V. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd. - [2014] 42 taxmann. Com 473 (Gujarat)/[2014] 222 Taxman 125. Section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Unsecured loan) Assessment year 200708 Whether when full particulars, inclusive of confirmation with name, address and PAN Number, copy of income tax returns, balance sheet, profit and loss account and computation of total income in respect of all creditors/lenders were furnished and when it had been found that loans were furnished through cheques and loan account were duly reflected in balance sheet, Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]. IT : Where name, address, PAN, copy of IT Returns, balance sheet, profit and loss account of all creditors/lenders as well as their confirmation had been furnished, Assessing Officer could not make addition on account of unsecured loan and interest thereon. 11. Gujarat HC - CIT Vs. SaileshKumar Rasiklal Mehta - 224 Taxman 212. Section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 Cash credit [Burden of proof] Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er hearing both the parties and perusing the record, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee received the sum of ₹ 4,00,000/-from Shri N I Vyas through banking channel. In support of his claim, bank passbook of the depositor along with PAN Card and letter of confirmation from Shri Vyas are already on record. Thus, the identity and creditworthiness of the depositor is established. We further find that the sum has already been repaid by the assessee to Mr. Vyas through the banking channel in installments in support of which necessary evidence is also on record. Therefore, the genuineness of the transaction is also established. In the light of these undisputed facts of this case, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is hereby deleted. The first ground of assessee's appeal is allowed. 14JUunedabad ITAT - Sarjan Corporation Vs. ACIT - 25 Taxmann. Com 426. 1. Section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 Cash credit Assessment year 2005 06. When confirmation of all parties, from which unsecured loans were received by assessee, were furnished along with their permanent account numbers, copy of acknowledgement of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmation and other materials to support genuineness of those parties, addition made on account of unexplained cash credits in those accounts could be sustained Held, no 18. Mumbai ITAT - ACIT Vs. Disha Constructions - 43 CCH 0317. Conspectus: Cash Credits -Creditworthiness of creditors- Assessee was engaged in the line of civil construction activity - AO had called for details of fresh loans obtained during the year relevant to A/Y - from the loan creditors, their respective income tax returns and bank statements relevant to the loan transactions but AO had alleged that that creditors had disclosed income at a low level, which had no commensurate with the loan given to the assessee - AO had concluded that the assessee had failed to prove the credit worthiness of few creditor and assessed loan creditors aggregating to specified amount as income of the assessee u/s 68 - On appeal, CIT(A) had concluded that the assessee had discharged the primary burden placed upon the assessee u/s 68 and the AO had failed to rebut the same - CIT(A) had deleted the assessment made u/s 68 for both A/Y's 2008-09 and 2009-10 -Held, the initial burden of proof to prove the cash credits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 'OP' of having advanced loan to assessee and had also submitted copy of bank statement as well as cash book of 'OP', it could be said that assessee had proved genuineness of loan and no addition could be made under section 68 -Held, yes. Thanking You, Yours truly, For, Pritesh Shah Associates Chartered Accountants Sd/- C. A. Pritesh Shah, Proprietor, Authorised Representative 4.1. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee had furnished PANs, addresses, etc. to prove the identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the depositors. We find that the assessee has filed PANs, addresses, etc. for demonstrating that the depositors were assessed to tax. In view of the case-laws as relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee more particularly judgement of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharamdev Finance (P.) Ltd. reported at (2014) 51 taxmann. Com 205 (Guj.):: (2014) 227 Taxman 219. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the addition. Thus, ground of assessee s appeal is allowed. 5. In the result, assessee s appeal for Asst. Year 2006-07 is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
