9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding as on 31.03.2015. We do not find any single reason to sustain the addition in the hands of the assessee and we direct the ld. AO to delete that addition. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. - Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM And Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, AM For the Assessee : Sh. C M Birla, CA For the Revenue : Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Because the assessee is aggrieved by an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 02/07/2024 [ for short ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2016-17. That order arises because the assessee has challenged the order dated 26.11.2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur before ld. CIT(A). 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 873500/- u/s 68 ignoring that this amount was receivable from sundry debtors as on 31.03.2015 (AY 2015-16) which is received in FY 2015-16. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and/or otherwise substitute any of the foregoing grounds as and when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those loans were less than Rs. 40,000/-. The claim of the assessee regarding receipts of Rs. 8,73,500/- was rejected on the following reasons by the ld. AO: i. Assessee did not even furnish the break-up of the loans given. Neither the names nor the PANs of the debtors were furnished. ii. No confirmation was filed by assessee. Not even single debtors name, address or confirmation produced. iii. All of these loans were claimed to have given via cash. Not a single amount was advanced or received through banking channel. It is also important here that any loan given and received of the amount above Rs 20,000/- attracts penalty u/s 269SS or 269TT of the IT Act, 1961 as the case may be. Since assessee did not even furnish the party-wise break- up, it is not possible to verify. iv. Though, assessee claimed that on the next date of hearing books of accounts will be produced. However, the same were never furnished. Even if assessee could have brought the books, it would not have substantiated the claim of the debtors as the books of accounts are not audited and she failed to produce any single evidence to establish her claim. In view of the above discussion the claim of the assessee regardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts are to be maintained as per Income Tax Act. She claimed that out of the receipt of Rs. 4,05.000/-, the income disclosed for Rs. 1,62.060/- was much more than the stipulated amount as per section 44E of the Act. 3.6 The Assessing Officer, in absence of any documentary evidence in support of the claims made by the assessee, had no other alternative than to treat the entire amount of Rs. 12.88.800/- as claimed as the source of purchase of the car and car running expense and other personal expenses claimed by the assessee. I have perused the assessment order and submissions made by the assessee during the appeal proceedings. On analysis of such evidences, it is found that the assessee received a substantial sum under will of her demised Mother-in-Law, which was forwarded to his Father-in-Law from which she received substantial interest income which was disclosed for Rs. 8.36.200/- as income from other sources. 3.7 Regarding the repayment of loans received in cash for Rs. 8.73,500/-, a list of 21 debtors were presented during the appeal stage. It is seen that the lowest of such loan was for Rs 25,000/- and the highest was for Rs. 48.000/-. The provisions of section 269SS or 269 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as above, and the appeal is partly allowed. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the finding on the addition of sustained by the ld. CIT(A) on account of pawning debtors realised in the year under consideration for an amount of Rs. 8,73,500/- the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee, he has filed the written submissions in respect of the various grounds raised by the assessee and the same is reproduced herein below: May it please your honour, 1. That appellant is assessed to tax since AY 2012-13. 2. That she had filed her ROI for AY 2015-16 on 17.10.2015. (PB1) 3. That Computation of Total Income, Capital Account and Balance Sheet. (PB 2 and 3) were filed before the learned AO during Assessment Proceedings which were not disputed by learned AO. 4. That during assessment proceedings the learned AO vide his Notice u/s 142(1) dated 27.010.2018 fixing date of hearing on 02.11.2018 raised following query in relation to pawning debtors of Rs. 873500/-. Kindly refer to the return of income submitted by for the AY 2015-16 wherein you have shown interest receipts from sundry debtors amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to verify Sundry debtors A/cs. However neither next date was given nor we presented it. We are enclosing herewith a Statement of Sundry debtors from whom Rs. 883800 were received. This is marked as Annexure D. (iii) As stated above in Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2015 sundry debtors of Rs. 873500 were appearing and Rs. 873500 plus interest Rs. 10300, on further loans during the year, thus totaling to Rs. 883800 were received back from sundry debtors and therefore as nature and source of Rs. 883800 is well explained therefore there was no reason for learned AO to tax it u/s 68. I may add that Rs. 873500/- is my opening balance meaning thereby it was taxed in earlier years. As held by Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in C.I.T. Vs ParmeshwarBohra 301 ITR 404 (Raj.) earlier years carry forward balance can not be taxed in current year. As amount of Rs. 873500 credited in current years books relates to earlier years outstanding being well explained does not attract provisions of section 68 and can not be taxed as unexplained cash credit in view of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court decision. 8. There was no next hearing before CIT(A) 2, Jaipur. Meanwhile files were transferred to NFAC, Delhi. In re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Copy of ITR for Assessment Year 2016-17 along with Computation of Total Income and Capital Account Balance Sheet. 5 to 8 4. Copy of letter dated 31.10.2018 filed to learned AO during assessment proceedings. 9 5. Statement of Sources and Application of Funds for FY 2015-16 (AY 2016-17). 10 6. Copy of letter dated 10.07.2019 filed before Hon'ble CIT(A)2 Jaipur 11 to 14 7. Copy of letter dated 04.05.2024 filed to Hon'ble CIT(A) NFAC 15 to 18 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the written submission, vehemently argued that ld. CIT(A) sustained that he has sustained the addition of Rs. 8,73,500/- being the receipt of money from pawning debtors. He has not appreciated the fact that the same was outstanding as on 31.03.2015. That money was received back in the year under consideration for an amount of Rs. 8,73,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. In the year under consideration is not correct finding to drive home. To drive home to this contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the balance-sheet of the assessee filed before the revenue as on 31.03.2015. The same is extracted herein below. BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2015 Liabilities Amount Assets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 2016-17, being the year of realisation of those outstanding pawning debtors. The bench noted that the ld. AO through ld. DR did not object to the contentions of the assessee that the amount was given on or before 31.03.2015 and the same were outstanding as at 31.03.2015. The money was advanced against the pawning security and the same was realised in the year under consideration. The assessee has already offered the interest arising out of those advances in the year when the advances were given. Even that aspect of the matter has not been disputed before us by either party. Thus, when the assessee has demonstrated that she has given advances against the security in the earlier year that source is not disputed even the interest earned on that is not disputed. Now when these money received back the same cannot be considered as unexplained money within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. As the money so received in the year under consideration is on account of opening balance of the advances of the earlier year and the same cannot be considered as income of the current year merely on the reasons that the assessee failed to give the complete details of the pawning debtors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the facts of this case because of the reason that the genuineness of the capital introduction in this case has already been adjudicated by the assessing authority for appropriate financial year i.e., 1992-93, therefore, it cannot be said to be unexplained investment after order passed by the assessing authority holding genuine capital introduction for the asst. yr. 1992-93. 9. In view of the reasons mentioned above, it is held that the. Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of the CIT, Udaipur dt. 31st Aug., 1999 passed under Section 263 of the Act of 1961. The question is answered accordingly. 10. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Respectfully following the finding of Jurisdictional High Court as referred and relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee as ld. DR did not produce any other contrary view on the issue having same strength. Thus, we do not find any single reason to sustain the addition in the hands of the assessee and we direct the ld. AO to delete that addition. Based on these observations, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. Ground no. 2 being general and there is no specific grievance raised by the assessee therefore, the same is not required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
