Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 200/JP/2017
ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A), Alwar dated 06/01/2017 for the A.Y. 2012-13 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken:
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in: 1. Confirming the addition of Rs. 9.00 lacs made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.
2 ITA 200/JP/2017_ Raj Kumar Goyal Vs ACIT 2. Confirming the disallowance of interest on loans of Rs. 2,11,800/- on account of corresponding interest claimed in the P&L account on unsecured loans. The appellant reserves his right to amend, add, alter, change or delete any of the grounds of the appeal, either before or during the course of hearing.”
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of jewellery. During the year under consideration, the assessee has taken unsecured loans of Rs. 60.30 lacs. The assessee furnished all the documentary evidence with respect to the loan creditors, their statement was also recorded by the A.O. U/s 131 of the Act. However, the A.O. disallowed a sum of Rs.54.30 lacs as unexplained deposit.
By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the entire addition except the addition of Rs. 9.00 lacs.
The revenue is not in appeal with respect to deletion of addition made on account of loan creditors, however, the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT with respect to addition of Rs. 9.00 lacs and interest thereon.
It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has no where stated that how the assessee failed to discharge his obligations
3 ITA 200/JP/2017_ Raj Kumar Goyal Vs ACIT to provide all the necessary details in favour of his claim in regard to loan amounts of Rs. 9.00 lacs whereas the assessee had furnished all the relevant evidences mentioned in the separate sheet filed before the lower authorities. Reliance was placed on the decision of Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs ITO order dated 11/05/2017.
The ld AR has further argued that when the identity of the creditor is well accepted by the A.O. since he examined them in response to his summon U/s 131, all the transactions were carried out through banking channel, no cash transaction was made, and accordingly transaction are genuine, all the creditors are having PAN number since long and filing their ITRs regularly and creditworthiness is well proved, TDS was deducted U/s 194A on the payment of interest, interest was shown by the recipient creditors in their ITRs. Under these facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily confirming the addition of Rs. 9.00 lacs which needs deletion.
On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the finding recorded by the lower authorities.
4 ITA 200/JP/2017_ Raj Kumar Goyal Vs ACIT 8. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that in respect of loan taken from Shri Jagdish Kumar, the assessee has filed following documentary evidence: (i) PAN No. (ii) Confirmation (iii) Voter ID (iv) Computation of income (v) Bank Passbook His statement was also recorded by the A.O. in response to summon issued U/s 131 of the Act on 12/3/2015. We found that the balance available in bank as at 19/04/2011 was Rs. 204043.95. Lender is 45 years old doing the business of transport commission since last 12-13 years long time. Keeping in view of the returned income of Rs. 434140/- creditworthiness of the lender to lend Rs. 200000/- to the assessee is very well proved. Accordingly, we do not find any justification for the addition so confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
With regard to loan taken from Smt. Rajni, following documentary evidence was filed before the lower authorities: i) PAN No. (ii) Confirmation (iii) ITR (iv) Computation of income
5 ITA 200/JP/2017_ Raj Kumar Goyal Vs ACIT (v) Voter ID Statement of Smt. Rajini was also recorded by the A.O. in response to summon issued U/s 131 of the Act on 12/3/2015. We found that the balance available in bank as at 07/4/2011 was Rs. 413333/- and as at 19/04/2011 Rs. 215333/-. Lender 47 years old and is doing the business of Grah Udyog for manufacturing and returned income is Rs. 312160/-. It proves the creditworthiness of the lender to lend Rs. 600000/- to the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any justification for the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) without giving any adverse finding so as to establish that Smt. Rajini was not having any creditworthiness.
With regard to loan payment of Rs. 1.00 lacs taken from Smt. Neeta Agarwal, we found that she has filed PAN, confirmation and bank passbook to show the genuineness and creditworthiness. However, she had not filed her ITR which was specifically asked by the A.O.. Furthermore, lender also did not attend the proceedings even if called by the A.O.. Therefore, in the fitness of thing, we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for deciding afresh after providing due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Following above reasoning, proportionate interest pertaining to Shri Jagdish Kumar and Smt. Rajni are also deleted. The issue of disallowance
6 ITA 200/JP/2017_ Raj Kumar Goyal Vs ACIT of proportionate interest paid to Neeta Agarwal is restored back to be decided in terms of our above observation.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAMESH C SHARMA) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22nd July, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Bharatpur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The A.C.I.T., Circle- Bharatpur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 200/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत