M/S. SUPRABHA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT.LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 888/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 August 2023AY 2012-137 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 CIT(A)'s decision to treat the unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of these loans, despite the admission of related parties.

What were the facts?

The assessee company appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the Assessing Officer's addition of unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits. The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.

What were the issues?

Whether the unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 were genuine. Whether the assessee discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of the loans.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI

Hearing: 25.08.2023Pronounced: 29.08.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012- 2013, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nashik, Nashik’s Order Appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-2/61/15-16, dated 13.02.2017, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017 2. We find with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is ab-initio- void, illegal and unlawful.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer, treating the cash deposited and the loan given to the appellant company as the income of the appellant whereas, those money had never been travelled back to the respective directors and shareholders. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the assesses appeal, without discussing the merits of the case. 4. The assessee craves leave to add to, modify delete or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal.”

3 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017 3. Mr. Murkunde next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion upholding the Assessing Officer’s findings making sec.68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.3,94,06,098/- (representing unsecured loans) as under :

“

4 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017

5 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017

4.

Suffice to say, it has come on record that the assessee has not been able to prove genuineness of the impugned unsecured loans resulting in sec.68 addition of unexplained cash credits. We rather note from a perusal of the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion in his assessment dated 03.03.2015 that he had duly considered the statements recorded by the concerned parties (relatives of the director) in response to sec.131 summons wherein the latter had admitted the assessee’s cash deposits as unexplained. That being the case, we are of the considered view that the mere fact of the assessee having filed only the bank statements or the alleged confirmation of all the parties could hardly be held to have discharged it’s onus as per Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214

6 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017 ITR 801 (SC); CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel [2019] 412 ITR 461 (SC). Their lordships have made it clear in all the foregoing landmark decisions that any explanation tendered in the course of income tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities; after removing all blinkers; and mere filing of documentary evidence would not itself amount to discharging onus to prove genuineness of the concerned parties in issue. Faced with the situation and more particularly in light of the fact that this assessee has nowhere discharged it’s primary onus in respect of genuineness of the unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.3,94,06,098/-, we find no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action invoking sec.68 unexplained cash credits addition. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.08.2023.

Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 29th August, 2023 VBP/-

7 I.T.A.No.888/PUN./2017 Copy to

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →