THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION, SURAT

ITA 1991/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 January 2019AY 2012-1328 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details like depositor names, addresses, PANs, confirmations, and bank statements. The AO failed to disprove the material facts in the affidavits and did not allow cross-examination of depositors.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a real estate developer, received unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated a significant portion of these loans as unexplained cash credits, as some depositors denied knowing the assessee or having transactions. The assessee provided documentary evidence and affidavits to substantiate the loans.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits is justified when the assessee has provided substantial documentary evidence and affidavits from depositors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(21)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT–BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 15/11/2018Pronounced: 15/01/2019

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA.No.1991/AHD/2016
ITA.No.715/AHD/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These are two Revenue’s appeals against the orders of ld.CIT(A), Surat dated 2.5.2016 and 30.12.2016 for the Asstt.Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Since assessee is same, we proceed to dispose of both these appeals by this common order.

2.

First we take appeal of the Revenue in the Asstt.Year 2012-13. 3. In the grounds of appeal of the Revenue, the solitary issue involved is with regard to deletion of addition made under section 68 of the Act of ITA No.1991/Ahd/2016 and 715/Ahd/2017 2 Rs.1,83,56,149/

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →