THE AROGYA LAKSHMI HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), VISAKHAPATNAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (confirmation letters and creditor details) filed by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the issue.
What were the facts?
The assessee borrowed Rs. 8,59,000 from five individuals, who were also shareholders. Confirmation letters and details of creditworthiness were not filed before the lower authorities due to shareholder disputes.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained loans from shareholders was justified without admitting additional evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, dated 19/06/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
The only issue involved in this appeal relates to addition of Rs. 8,59,000/-. The assessee has borrowed certain amounts from five persons amounting to Rs. 8,59,000/-. As no confirmation letters have been filed neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A), addition is made. Before us, ld.AR has filed (M/s. The Arogya Lakshmi Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.) confirmation letters and also the details about the creditworthiness of the creditors and submitted that creditors are shareholders of the company. There is a dispute between the shareholders, therefore assessee-company has not filed the confirmations before the lower authorities and submitted that additional evidence may be admitted and issue may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below.
We find that the assessee was not able to file the confirmation letters due to the reasons mentioned above. We find that it is a fit case to admit the additional evidence, accordingly additional evidence filed by the assessee is admitted in the form of paper book page Nos.1 to 17. In view of the above, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to adjudicate the issue denovo in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
(M/s. The Arogya Lakshmi Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.)
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 08th day of Jan., 2020.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026