9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be made in the hands of the assessee u/s. 68 hence, the same deserve to be deleted. The amount in dispute is a short term loan which was duly repaid by the assessee through proper banking channel to M/s Birch Vinmay Private Limited, hence, in our considered view the addition in dispute was wrongly been made in the hands of the assessee which needs to be deleted. Therefore, we delete the addition in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 5140/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2020 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Shaantanu Jain, Advocate For the Department : Sh. Umeshtakyar, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: This appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing out of this appeal and for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the legal grounds involved in ground nos. 1-4 of the appeal, hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 3. The facts relating to the issue in dispute is that assessee has filed the return of income at ₹ 5,60,890/- for the assessment year 2010-11 on 1.10.2010. Later on, notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2017. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee submitted on 06.10.2017 that return originally file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords especially the paper book containing pages 1-47 which includes the written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A); notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.3.2017; Booked with India Post Indraprastha HQ dated 1.4.2017 timing 10.18.59 vide speed post no. ED539828587N; Delivered on 7.4.2017; Kunal M. Patel (HUF) vs. Hiren Bhatt or his successors to office ors. (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj.); Reasons recorded dated 30.3.2017; Objections to notice u/s. 148 dated 11.10.2017 before AO; order disposing the objections dated 6.11.2017; Confirmation of account and ledger account of Birch Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. for the AY 2010-11; Bank Certificate alongwith bank statement showing receipt and payment of ₹ 25 lacs to Birch Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.; Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i High Court which includes the following:- - CIT vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 203 Taxman 218 (P H), wherein it was held that loan repaid through banking channels Tribunal, on the basis of material on record, having come to the conclusion that the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- which was received by the assessee from N had been repaid to him within a period of 15 days and the said transaction was a bona fide transaction and the provisions of section 68 were not attracted, no interference is called for with the order of Tribunal deleting addition. - Yamuna Syntehtics P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 91 TTJ 69 (Del.) wherein it was held that loans received by the assessee through banking channels and repaid through banking channels Addition under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount to the income of the assessee without any substantial material, but only on surmises In view of the concurrent finding of fact with regard to the genuineness of the transaction, no substantial question of law arises. 6.2 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as explained above as well as documentary evidences filed by the assessee especially paper book as discussed above, we are of the view that the amount in dispute is a short term loan which was duly repaid by the assessee through proper banking channel to M/s Birch Vinmay Private Limited, hence, in our considered view the addition in dispute was wrongly been made in the hands of the assessee which needs to be deleted. Therefore, we delete the addition in dispute. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
