GRIP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5524/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2023AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,47,000. It agreed with the CIT(A) that the cash deposit by the lender immediately before advancing the loan raised serious concerns about the genuineness of the transaction, and the assessee failed to provide concrete evidence to rebut the AO's finding.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 1,47,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The addition was sustained by the CIT(A) because the lender deposited cash of a similar amount just before lending it to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash loan received by the assessee was genuine, considering the lender deposited a similar amount just before advancing the loan.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 20.02.2023Pronounced: 20.02.2023

The Assessee has come in appeal against order dated 16.04.2019 in appeal no. 294/17-18/ CIT(A)-4 for the assessment year 2015-16 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Authority’ or in short ‘Ld. F.A.A.’) in appeal before it against order dated 25.12.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi ( herein after referred to as ‘Ld. Assessing officer or in short Ld. AO’).

2.

Heard and perused the record. .Del.2019 M/s. Grip Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2

3.

As the time of hearing, non-appeared for the assessee and the record shows on earlier occasions also non-appeared for the assessee inspite of notices of date of hearing being issued. Accordingly, Ld. DR was heard on merits who supported the findings of ld. CIT(A).

4.

Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that the addition of Rs. 1,47,000/- u/s 68 of the Act has been sustained by Ld. CIT(A) with following findings :- 6.2 I have considered the finding of the AO and the submission of the appellant. One of the key findings of the AO is that just before lending the funds to the assessee company cash of the same amount is deposited by the lender. 6.2.1 The assessee before the AO as well as before me submitted his response. From the analysis of the response, the assessee submitted that the loan has been advanced out of the other accumulated balance and not from the cash deposited. Other documents like ITR, bank statement, etc. were furnished on record to substantiate the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the party. 6.2.2 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The deposit of cash of similar amount just before the lending of money to appellant company, raises serious concerns about the genuineness of the lender. Nothing concrete has been furnished on record to justify and substantiate the source of such cash and to rebut the claim/ finding of the AO. 6.2.3 Thus, in this regard, I concur with the finding of the AO and uphold the addition made amounting to Rs. 1,47,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.”

It can be appreciated that Ld. AO had made an addition of Rs. 5. 78,84,901/- and being satisfied with regard to explanations coming from the assessee with regard to confirmations etc. of Rs. 78,37,901/- from Pragati Infraheights & Developmers Private Limited and the addition to that extend was deleted, however, in regard to loan coming from Bharat Bhusan to the extent of Rs. 1,47,000/-, the circumstance of deposit of similar amount just before lending to the appellant company has been given due consideration and in the absence of anything on record to the contrary to justify the loan as genuine .Del.2019 M/s. Grip Construction Pvt. Ltd. 3 transaction, no interference is called for and the ground raised have no substance. The appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th February, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →