SHRI NARESH KUMAR GOYAL ,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, TINSUKIA

आदेश /O R D E R PER BEMCH:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Dibrugarh’s order dated 17.01.2018 passed in case No. CIT(A), Dibrugarh/10110/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the learned representatives. Case file perused.

ITA No.72/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Naresh Kr. Goyal. Vs. ITO, Ward-2-Tinsukia Page 2 “5. Ground Nos. 3 to 6: These grounds are directed against addition of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 5.1 During relevant financial year, assessee was Karta of HUF named, Naresh Goyal (HUF). In the balance sheet, assessee was shown to have taken loan of Rs.9,00,000/- from the HUF. On the days in which the loan was claimed to have been taken from the HUF, there were cash deposits of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- in the bank account of the HUF. When the AO inquired about credit worthiness of the HUF, he found out that the said HUF was stated to start business from FY 2012-13 only. Tax return declared by the HUF for AY 2013-14 was only Rs.1,95,210/-. On further inquiry, the AO found out that the HUF was not having any trade license and VAT registration. It also had no employees in its role and no details of sales for FYrs. 2012-13 and 2013-14 could be produced. The loan of Rs.9,00,000/- was stated to have come from sale proceeds of the HUF, but no evidences regarding any sales could be produced. No evidence of rent payment from any space occupied for purpose of carrying out the business could be produced. Since the business of assessee was stated to have started only from FY 2012-13 and as the income for that year was only Rs.1,95,000/-, the AO took the view that creditworthiness was not proved. Assessee was unable to prove how Rs.960,910/- was available as capital as on 01.04.2013. The AO therefore added Rs.9,00,000/- to the income of assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. 5.2 On careful examination of the facts on record, it is seen that creditworthiness of the HUF was not proved. It is assessee’s duty to prove creditworthiness of person from whom loan was allegedly taken. The very fact that deposits of cash took place on the same days in which loans were allegedly taken give credence to the belief that the loans were not genuine. Assessee had not given any proof to show that the HUF ha profitable concern from, which loan of Rs,9,00,000/- could have been advanced. No proof regarding purchase and sale of goods by HUF was available. In view of cogent facts marshaled by the AO against claim made by assessee, three is sufficient reason to reject the claim of assessee. The grounds taken are dismissed.” 3. Learned counsel vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the impugned loan(s) have come from assessee’s eponymous HUF only whose corresponding details already form part of case record, the impugned addition is liable to be deleted therefore. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that assessee’s HUF has been found to have been deriving meagre income and the credits in its bank accounts have seen corresponding withdrawal in a very short span of time as well. It therefore submits that all these circumstances prove suspicious circumstances going against the assessee.

ITA No.72/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Naresh Kr. Goyal. Vs. ITO, Ward-2-Tinsukia Page 3 fact remains that although the assessee has filed all documentary evidence, he has failed to discharge the onus regarding genuineness / creditworthiness of the HUF having meagre source of income despite followed by withdrawals in short span of time. The Revenue has also failed to dispute that the above foregoing supportive evidence prima facie proves that the loans have come from assessee’s HUF only. We deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of ₹4,50,000/- instead of entire sum of ₹9,00,000/- only deserves to be added as unexplained cash credits. We make it clear that our instant estimation is based on peculiar facts and it shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The assessee gets part relief. Consequential assessment shall follow as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court 18/12/2019 Sd/- Sd/- (A.L.Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp �दनांकः- 18/12/2019 कोलकाता/। आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-Sri Naresh Kr. Goya, C/o M/s B.T. Textiles, J.P. Market, A.T. Road, Tinsukia-786125, Assam 2. ��यथ� /Respondent-ITO Ward-2-Tinsukia-786125 3. संबं*धत आयकर आयु-त / Concerned CIT Guwahati 4. आयकर आयु-त- अपील / CIT (A) Guwahati 5. 0वभागीय �3त3न*ध, आयकर अपील�य अ*धकरण, / DR, ITAT, Guwahati 6. गाड7 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/ Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील�य अ*धकरण, गूवाहाठ� ।