Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
आदेश/ ORDER
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [ in short the ‘CIT(A)’] dated 24/09/2019 for the assessment years 2012-13.
Shri Rajkumar Singh appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the solitary issue raised in the present appeal is against confirming of addition of Rs.9,88,715/- under section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short 'the Act') by holding unsecured loans and interest paid thereon as non-genuine. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee narrating the facts of the case submitted that the assessee had taken unsecured loans from various persons. The Assessing Officer accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee in respect of some of the lenders and rejected the documents and explanation furnished by the assessee in respect of unsecured loans taken from the following persons:
S.No. Name of Lender Loan Amount (Rs.) Interest Paid (Rs.) 1. Laxmidevi B Bhansali 7,50,000/- 71,250/- 2. Nimisha Bothra 92,625/- 37,925/- 3. Utkarsha Bothra 11,380/- 9,480/- 4. 2,742/- 13,313/- Palak Bothra The assessee had proved with documentary evidence the source and identity of the lenders. The assessee had also proved genuineness of the loan transactions. Despite having furnished all the relevant documents, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the same and made addition of the loan amount received from the aforesaid lenders and interest paid on said loans. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/09/2017, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in a non-speaking order without appreciating the documents filed by the assessee rejected the contentions raised by the assessee. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that out of four lenders, the CIT(A) has not even bothered to mention and comment on the documents furnished in respect of two lenders i.e. Nimisha Bothra and Palak Bothra. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee explained the source of unsecured loan with the help of documents furnished in the paper book.
On the other hand Shri Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal by the assessee.
Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. The addition of Rs.9,88,715/- has been made in the hands assessee on account of unproved loan transaction and the interest paid thereon. The assessee has taken loan from various persons including loan from the lenders named below:
(1) Laxmidevi B Bhansali:- The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the loan of Rs.7,50,000/- was given by Laxmidevi Bansali out of her own savings. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that an amount of Rs.7,44,041/- was received by Laxmidevi Bhansali on maturity of her PPF account and the same amount was credited to her saving bank account with Canara Bank on 15/06/2011. The loan was advanced by her to the assessee on 19/06/2011. To support his contention the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee referred to the copy of bank pass book at pages 10 and 11 of the Paper Book and Post Office PPF pass book at pages 13 and 14 of the Paper Book. The assessee has also furnished confirmation from Laximidevi Bansali at page-7 and copy of her return of income for assessment year 2012-13 at page 8 of the Paper Book. The above documents furnished by the assessee sufficiently prove the creditworthiness and identity of the lender and genuineness of the transaction.
(2) Nimisha Bothra: To prove creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of the transaction the assessee has furnished extract of balance sheet as on 31/03/12 of Nimisha Bothra along with copy of his bank account with Bank of Baroda. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that Nimisha Bothra was minor when his loan transaction was undertaken and he turned major during the assessment year 2012-13. A confirmation letter from Nimisha Bothra has been filed at page 15 of the Paper Book and his return of income for assessment year 2012-13 is at page 16 of the Paper Book. The said documents furnished by the assessee indicates creditworthiness and identity of the lender and genuineness of the transactions.
(3) Utkarsh Bothra: The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that Utkarsh Bothra is a minor and his income has been clubbed with the income of his father Shri Lalip P. Bothra. The assessee furnished a copy of ITR for assessment year 2012-13 alongwith computation of Lalit P. Bothra at pages 25 to 27 of the Paper Book. A copy of his balance sheet as on 31/03/2012 is also placed on record at page 28 of the Paper Book. The bank statement of Lalit P. Bothra with Saraswath Co- operative Bank Ltd. and Bank of Baroda are at pages 32 to 36 of the Paper Book. A perusal of ITR reveals that income of Utkarsh Bothra has been clubbed with the income of Lalit P. Bothra. The assessee has been able to prove genuineness of the loan transactions with Utkarsh.
(4) Palak Bothra: The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee has pointed that Palak Bothra is a minor and her income has been clubbed with the income of her father Lalit P. Bothra. The documents furnished to support the loan transaction in the case of Utkarsh Bothra also refers to the transaction with Palak Bothra. From examination of the documents on record it can be safely deduced that the assessee has been able to discharge his own in proving genuineness of loan transaction.
The assessee succeeds on the ground raised in the appeal. Hence, the addition of Rs. 9,88,715/- is deleted and appeal by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on Thursday the 07th day of October, 2021