SANKPAL DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-25(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1064/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 July 2023AY 2013-148 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the loan was transferred via bank transaction and the assessee provided company master data of the lender. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on the lender's meagre profit and net worth not corresponding to the loan amount.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared nil income but was found to have received an unsecured loan of Rs. 50 Lakhs from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as an unexplained credit, as the assessee failed to produce the loan party.

What were the issues?

Whether the unsecured loan of Rs. 50 Lakhs from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. constitutes an unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the lender's financial standing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali
Hearing: 26/06/2023Pronounced: 14/07/2023

O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 24.03.2023 for AY. 2013-14.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.50 Lakhs on account of alleged bogus loan received by the assessee. 3. Brief facts, as noted by the AO is that the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. nil. Later, the return was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO noted that he received information from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Sanjay Choudhary, Shri Dharmichand Jain [alleged entry operators] and their group entities are providing accommodation entries inter-alia in the nature of unsecured loans and that assessee is also a beneficiary of such activity. According to the AO, the assessee 2 A.Y. 2013-14 Sankpal Developers had shown to have received unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.50 Lakhs from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. Nazar”) which according to AO was operated by these entry operators (supra). So, the AO confronted, the assessee to prove the un-secured loan from M/s. Nazar. Pursuant thereto, assessee filed (i) copy of ITR of M/s. Nazar (ii) confirmation account (iii) bank statement of the loan transaction to prove the nature and source of loan i.e. identity, creditworthiness of genuineness of the transaction. According to the AO, despite the following documents filed, the assessee failed to produce the loan party and based on the information available with him, he was of the opinion that unsecured loan of Rs.50 Lakhs is nothing but accommodation entry from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd. And therefore, he treated the transaction of as un-explained credit and added it u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing that M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd has meagre profit of Rs.2,68,202/- and net worth of Rs.14,30,222/- which do not correspond to huge sum of money to lend to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is noted that the assessee has taken loan from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd on 28.03.2013 which facts is discernible from the bank statement of the M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd found placed at page no. 27 of PB which shows that on 28.03.2013 through bank transaction an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs has been transferred to the assessee (M/s. Sankpal Developers). The assessee in order to prove the identity of the lender has filed the 3 A.Y. 2013-14 Sankpal Developers company master data of M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd downloaded from

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →