SHRI KAPIL GARG,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(2), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 839/IND/2018Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 January 2020AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing requisite evidence for the unsecured loans. The Revenue authorities failed to consider this evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,18,400/- on account of unsecured loans. The assessee provided PAN and addresses of the lenders and argued that the loans pertained to a previous assessment year, supported by cheques and bank statements.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unsecured loans is justified when the assessee has provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the same.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Rawka, CA
For Respondent: Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.1.2020Pronounced: 16.1.2020

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld.

CIT(A)-III, Indore dated 31.8.2018 for the assessment year 2009-

10.

At the outset of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee did not press last ground i.e. ground no.2 with regard to disallowance

2 SMC – Kapil Garg ITA 839 of 2018 on account of personal expenses of Rs.35,000/-, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed.

2.

Now, the only effective ground raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,18,400/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loan.

Facts giving rise to the ground of appeal are that the return of income of Rs.3,90,920/- was filed and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment at Rs.11,44,320/- making addition of Rs.7,18,400/- on account of unsecured loans of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.2,18,400/- taken from Shri Sushil Puroshotam Das and Shri Sohail Khan, respectively. The assessee went in appeal and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the assessee is before this Tribunal.

3.

Before me, learned counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and submitted that PAN and address of Shri Sushil Chandra Purshottam Das and address of Shri Sohail Khan was provided. Moreover, these

3 SMC – Kapil Garg ITA 839 of 2018 loans pertain to previous assessment year i.e. 2008-09 as is evident from cheques and bank statements and balance sheet filed before revenue authorities. The statement also reflects the place wherefrom the amount is received. Therefore, the assessee has explained the credit of unsecured loans and the addition is unjustified. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities but could not controvert the submission of the assessee by bringing any contrary material on record.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the file. On consideration of above facts, I find that the amount of loans from the concerned parties was received in the previous year and the assessee had also provided the requisite evidence like PAN/addresses/bank statements/balance sheet etc. in support of the contention, therefore, the assessee had duly discharged his onus. But the Revenue authorities failed to consider the same.

Therefore, looking to these facts, I direct the Assessing Officer to 4 SMC – Kapil Garg ITA 839 of 2018 delete the addition of Rs.7,18,400/-. Accordingly, the only effective ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

5.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 16.1.2020.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →