Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA No.6003/Del/2019 (for Assessment Year : 2011-12) Pert Consultants Ltd., Vs. ITO, A-12, Lajpat Nagar-II, Ward-19(4), New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACP 5416 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Ms.Riviya Shah, C.A. Revenue by Shri Vinod Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 28/12/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 05/02/2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2011-12.
The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :
Assessee is a company who has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 22.09.2011 declaring Nil income. The
ITA No.6003-Del-2019 Pert Consultants Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2011-12 2 assessment was reopened u/s 147 and the notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2018 and thereafter the case was taken up for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s 147 of the Act vide order dated 30.10.2018 and the total income was determined at Rs. 4,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 22.05.2019 in Appeal No.10492/487/CIT(A)-7/Del/2018- 19 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “Grossly erred in adding income of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. Without considering the fact and circumstances of the case and added income of Rs.4,00,000/- 3. Craves Leave to add/alter amend or delete any ground.”
Before me, Learned AR submitted that the case was reopened on the basis of the information received by AO from DDIT (Inv.) wherein it was informed that M/s. Delhi Spot Bullions Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. had received unsecured loan aggregating to Rs.3,27,59,499/- from various entities. It was noted that assessee was one of the entity who had given loan to Delhi Spot Bullions Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year 2010-11. He submitted that on the basis of the details with the AO, it was noted that assessee had advanced Rs. 4,00,000/- to Delhi Spot Bullions Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Since the assessee had failed to explain genuine business activity and purpose of loan, AO in the absence of satisfactory
ITA No.6003-Del-2019 Pert Consultants Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2011-12 3 explanation made addition of Rs.4,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. Assessee is therefore now in appeal.
Before me, Learned AR submitted that the provision u/s 68 of the Act are not applicable to the present case because it is not a case of assessee having received any loan or cash credit but on the contrary it is a case of assessee advancing the loan through banking channels. He therefore, submitted that the impugned amount cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
Learned DR on the other hand, supported the order of lower authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. I find that in the present case AO has made the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Provision of Section 68 of the Act can be attracted when there are a credit found in the books of account and the assessee fails to offer any explanation or explanations offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that it is not a case of receipt of loan or money by the assessee or a case of credit found in the books of assessee. On the contrary, it is a case where assessee is stated to
ITA No.6003-Del-2019 Pert Consultants Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2011-12 4 have advanced loan to Delhi Spot Bullions Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. In such a situation it cannot be considered to be a case of cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act. I am therefore of the view that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable in the present case. I therefore direct the deletion of addition of Rs. 4 lakh in this case. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05.02.2021
Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date:- 05.02.2021 PY* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI