ADARSH AUTOMOBILES,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3), PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 18.05.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm deriving income from dealing in Petrol and Diesel. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.7,30,139/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 15.01.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.18,47,270/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of outstanding loan of Rs.10,00,000/- received from M/s. Rajat Construction, as the appellant had failed to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the said creditors despite giving several opportunities. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) contending that the security deposits were received during the financial year 2007-08 i.e. relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 and, therefore, cannot be brought to tax. However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by holding that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus lying upon it to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the creditors.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

It is submitted before me that the security deposits were received from M/s Rajat Construction during the financial year 2007-08. In support of this, the appellant filed the ledger extract as well as copy of the bank statement, wherein, the said deposits were reflected. Thus, ld. AR submits that the Assessing Officer cannot go into the genuineness of the transactions during the year under consideration. The addition, if any, required to be made, it can be only made for the assessment year 2009-10, not for the year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2013-14. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposing the submissions of the assessee submits that no interference by this Tribunal is required, as the appellant had failed to discharge the onus lying upon it to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 7. I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the addition of unsecured loan of Rs.10,00,000/- received from M/s. Rajat Construction. Admittedly, during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant had not discharged the onus lying upon it to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the credit showing in the name of M/s. Rajat Construction. However, during the course of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the appellant received a security deposit from M/s Rajat Construction during the financial year 2007-08 i.e. relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. In support of this, the ld. AR also filed the copies of the bank statement, wherein, entries in respect of receipt of money from M/s. Rajat Construction were reflected. He also filed the copies of ledger extract of the said M/s. Rajat Construction as appearing in the books of the appellant firm. It is well settled position of law that the addition in respect of credit appearing in the books of accounts can only be made in the year in which the credit appears in the books of accounts of the assessee for the first time. Since this issue was not examined either by the Assessing Officer or by the ld. CIT(A), I am of the considered opinion that in the interests of justice, matter may be remanded to