SURESH KUMAR JAIN,HARYANA vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6191/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 March 2020AY 2010-119 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits with detailed reasons. Since no new material was presented to persuade the Tribunal to differ from the CIT(A)'s view, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the appeal. The assessee raised grounds concerning additions made on account of unsecured loans treated as cash credits and disallowance of interest claimed. The assessee's representative was absent during the ITAT hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on account of unsecured loans and disallowance of interest were justified. Whether the CIT(A)'s order was based on proper appreciation of facts and law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 19.09.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on the facts and as per the circumstances of the case, both the Lower Authorities i.e. AO & ACIT(A), have erred in assessing the Income of the appellant at Rs. 1,45,63,490/- as against returned income of Rs. 1,23,03,030/-. As such the aggregate additions of Rs. 18,13,789/- as confirmed by the first appellate authority

ITA No.- 6191/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Jain may please be deleted.

2.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) have erred in confirming the addition aggregating to Rs 14,36,333/- (Rs.13,50,000/- + Rs. 86,333/-) made by the AO on account of acceptance of unsecured loans from different parties while treating the same as cash credits and aggregating to Rs 13,50,000/- and by disallowing the interest claimed thereon of Rs. 86,333/-. The AO & ACIT(A) failed to consider the creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the parties and also failed to appreciate the fact that the primary onus was duly discharged by the appellant, moreso when the alleged cash creditors were relatives and family members of the appellant. As such, the aggregate addition of Rs 14,36,333/- made to the returned income may please be deleted.

3.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in Law, the AO as well as the Ld CIT(A) have both erred in making and confirming respectively, an addition of Rs. 3,77,456/- on account of disallowance of interest claimed u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act by wrongly relying on the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of CIT v/s Abhishek Industries Ltd rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and as such the addition amounting to Rs. 3,77,456/- may kindly be deleted.

4.

We crave to add, alter, delete or modify or withdraw any of above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

(B) Vide Assessment Order dated 28.03.2013 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “I.T. Act”). The relevant portion of the Assessment Order dated 28.03.2013 is reproduced as under:-

ITA No.- 6191/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Jain

ITA No.- 6191/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Jain

”

(C) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 19.09.2016, wherein Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed assessee’s appeal. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

“

ITA No.- 6191/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Jain

ITA No.- 6191/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Jain

”

(D) This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 19.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Saras Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“Ld. Sr. DR”, for short). However, none was present from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, at the time Page 6 of 9

ITA No.- 6191/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Jain of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR; who relied upon the order dated 28.03.2013 of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 19.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the materials on record, including the order of the AO and the aforesaid impugned order dated 19.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph (C) of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 19.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on merit. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 19.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

[E] Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.

ITA No.- 6191/Del/2019 Suresh Kumar Jain [F] In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in Open Court on 05/03/20.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →