SKYLINE & STERLING THEATRES.,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1247/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 August 2021AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the technical deficiencies in the documentation provided by the assessee. However, to allow for a more effective adjudication, the assessee was directed to produce the creditor in person before the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee made an addition of Rs. 19 lakhs as unexplained cash credit. The assessee provided bank statements and a confirmation from the creditor, but the lower authorities found technical shortcomings, particularly the absence of a date on the creditor's confirmation.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 19 lakhs as unexplained cash credit was justified given the technical shortcomings in the supporting documents provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 10-04-2017 passed in case No.0262/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2015-16/2016-17, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the sole issue raised herein of correctness of both the lower authorities’ action making Section 68 un- explained cash credits addition of Rs.19 lakhs, we notice at the outset with the able assistance coming from both sides that although the assessee had not only placed on record the necessary bank statement but also confirmation of the creditor party Mr. Mohd.Ashrafuddin. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have found technical shortcomings therein and more particularly in the creditors confirmation that the same does not contain even a date as well.

3.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel undertakes before us to produce the assessee’s creditor party Mr. Mohd.Ashrafuddin if it afforded one more effective innings. We therefore partly decline the Revenue’s arguments supporting the impugned addition and direct the assessee to produce the creditor party, Mr. Mohd.Ashrafuddin on or before 30-11-2021 before the Assessing Officer; at its own risk and responsibility, to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →