Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 26.03.2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 and following grounds have been taken:
2 . A.Y. 2009-10 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,00,00.000/- made u/s 68 in respect ot unsecured loan received by the appellant.
2. The learned CIT(A) has observed and noted that the whole of the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- added u/s 68 of the Act has already been offered as income by Shri Vijay Bansal before the Settlement Commission on page 36 of his impugned order. However, he has erred in not deleting the said amount in the hands of the appellant despite giving such clear finding. His action has resulted into double taxation of the very same income which is not permissible under the Act.
3. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.
4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in levying interest u/s 234A/B/C of the Act.
5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings it is observed that the assessee company accepted unsecured loans from the folio-wing parties: Sr. No Name of company Unsecured Loan (Rs.)
Saragassa Investment & 30,00,000/- Finance Limited 2. Shree Datta Industries Limited 40,00,000/- 3. Gujarat Chemi Plasto Limited 30,00,000/- Total... 1,00,00,000/- 3 . A.Y. 2009-10 Notices under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been issued to the above mentioned parties for cress verification of the data, However, no response have been received from the said parties hence, show cause notices dated 03.11.2011 and 02.12.2011 have been issued to the assessee company. In response to the same the assessee company has replied as under vide its letter dated 03.12.2011.
"2. At the outset , specific attention of your Honor is drawn to the fact that except for receiving the above mentioned unsecured loans through proper banking channel, from the three parties as mentioned in the notice, which have been repaid in full during the course of the financial year itself and that too, by crossed account payee bank instruments, the company has not carried out any other transactions with any of them. It may also be placed on record that all these three parties are independent legal entities, not only incorporated as such under the Companies Act, 1956 but also having valid PAN so as to be on the records of the Income-tax departments as well. Further, the Assessee Company or any of its Directors are not otherwise associated with these companies or with any of their Directors of Shareholders, which may please be noted.
But letter issued u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act for enquiry for returned unserved in all the cases.
Since assessee has failed to establish creditworthiness source and genuineness of Rs. 1 crore. Thus, assessee made an addition of Rs. 1 crore as an unexplained credit.
Thereafter, Shri Vijay Kumar Bansal main persons/director of the appellant company has filed the computation before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission 4 . A.Y. 2009-10 disclosure his unaccounted income to the tune of Rs. 26.15 crores which included his undisclosed income routed in his group. As per his computation in the case of appellant company his undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 6 crores have been introduced which has been intimated by the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad to the office of ld. CIT(A). But despite of that fact, ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the ld. A.O.
Since appellant has already declared Rs. 6 crores before the Settlement Commission which also include Rs. 1 crore which was added as unexplained credit. When contention of the appellant has been accepted by the Hon’ble Settlement Commission and this fact was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) giving full details of disclosure made under various head.
In view of the above, we set aside the matter to the file of the ld.A.O. to go through the Hon’ble Settlement Commission order and to see whether an amount of Rs. 1 crore was accepted as unsecured loan from namely:
Sr. No. Name of company Unsecured Loan (Rs.) 1 Saragossa Investment & finance Limited 30,00,000/- 2 Shree Datta Industries Ltd. 40,00,000/- 3 Gujarat Chemi Plasto Ltd. 30,00,000/-
Total 1,00,00,000/- 5 . A.Y. 2009-10 8. If it is found that above said unsecured loans have been declared and appellant has paid tax on it pursuant to Settlement Commission order then addition to be deleted by the A.O as per provision of law.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 25- 07- 2019