DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, MEERUT vs. SBEC SUGAR LTD., BAGHPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4504/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 November 2021AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had considered additional evidence and obtained a remand report which did not indicate any discrepancies. Therefore, the additions were deleted after verification of the evidence produced.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer had made additions for unverifiable sundry creditors and in genuine unsecured loans. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions made by the AO on account of unverifiable sundry creditors and in genuine unsecured loans, despite the assessee's failure to produce sufficient evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Kashyap, CA
For Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR, Shri P.S. Kashyap, CA
Hearing: 03/11/2021

This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order dated 13.3.2018 passed by the CIT (A), Meerut for Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under :-

“1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and fact in not deciding the issue of admission of Rs. 1,96,73,330/- made by the A.O. on account of unveriflable sundry creditors u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce fresh confirmation with copy of bill, ITR and bank transaction details of depositor to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction.

2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the ease, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,48,99,269/- made by the A.O. on account of in genuine unsecured loans u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and disallowance of interest paid on these loans @ 12% as expenses unrelated to business as the assessee failed to produce fresh confirmation with copy of ITR and bank transaction details and other supportive documents of depositor to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the loan transaction as appearing in the books of the assessee.

3.That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored.

4.That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and / or delete any ground(s) of appeal.”

3.

The assessee is engaged in business of production and trading of sugar. The assessee company filed its original return of income on 29.9.2011 declaring loss of Rs. 2,12,574/- and revised return on 24.9.2012 declaring loss of Rs. 8,57,49,520/-. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of sale value of pres cake amounting to Rs. 97,91,672/-, addition on account of creditor amounting to Rs. 1,96,73,330/-, addition on account of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 2,51,47,742/- and addition on account of foreign travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 5,88,333/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue of demand of Rs. 1,96,73,330/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unverifiable sundry creditors u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 ignoring the fact that the asessee failed to produce fresh confirmation with copy of bill, ITR and bank transaction detail of depositor to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. Ld. DR further submitted that deleting addition of Rs. 2,48,99,269/- by the CIT(A) was not correct as the Assessing Officer has made this addition on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 and also disallowed interest paid on this loan @ 12% as expenses unrelated to business as the assessee failed to produce fresh confirmation with copy of ITR and bank details.

6.

Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT(A) has taken the cognizance of additional evidence filed before him and asked the Assessing Officer to place remand report which was taken on record by the CIT(A). Remand report has not given any discrepancy in the evidence produced by the assessee. Thus both the additions were deleted after verification of evidences produced before the CIT(A). Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →