LATE PR GOPALA KRISHNA REDDY REP BY LH P HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY & P SHRAVAN KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD

The assessee's first and foremost substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorites' action disallowing the assessee's Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) brought forward in Assessment Year 2006-07. We notice at the outset that it has come on record that the tribunal’s co- ordinate bench order in assessee's appeal ITA 724/Hyd/2011 has restored back the issue of carryforward losses to the Assessing Officer qua afresh factual verification. The Revenue’s case in light of learned lower authorities' discussion is that the impugned claim has been rightly disallowed. We find no merit in the instant argument since the Assessing Officer is yet to determine the exact amount of carry forward consequential loss(es) in Assessment Year 2006-07. We therefore restore the instant issue back to him to be decided in light of his findings in the said preceding assessment year. This first and foremost substantive ground of the assessee is accepted for statistical purposes.

Next comes section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.16,20,000 inter alia involving P. Balarami Reddy, P. Sundari Reddy, G.N. Sandhya Reddy and P. Harshavardhana Reddy; appellant(s) before us as LRs of the deceased assessee. It has come on record that the assessee had filed their confirmation(s) which also stood verified in assessment proceedings. All these parties / family members had claimed to have obtained loans taken in the earlier assessment year from the assessee. This explanation stands declined both in remand report as well as in CIT(A)’s order on the ground that there was no evidence which could corroborate the impugned repayment.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against and in support of the impugned addition. We find no merit to sustain the same. This is for the reason that all these family members have confirmed not only as source of the cash credits but also purpose thereof as repayment of loans. Learned lower authorities' decline the same by pin-pointing certain technical aspects of joint accounts held etc which is totally unsustainable in law since the assessee is supposed to prove identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of this amount of cash credit than the corresponding past history of loans. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition of Rs.16.20 lakhs. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This assessee's appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms.