Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 arise against the CIT(A)-3, Pune's separate orders dated 13.08.2018 and 14.08.2018 in case No.PN/CIT(A)-3/Wd 3(2), Pn/261/2016-17/393 and in case No. PN/CIT(A)- 3/Wd 3(2), Pn/260/2016-17/392 case wise, respectively, in proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that assessee has raised his identical twin substantive grounds seeking to challenge validity of sec.148/147 proceedings as well as correctness of sec.68 addition(s) of Rs.8,77,47,700/- and Rs.1,35,69,972/-, assessment year wise, respectively. We thus treat the assessee’s former appeal ITA.No.1786/Pun./2018 for assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” case.
2 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune.
We first of all proceed to deal with assessee’s legal ground wherein the Assessing Officer had recorded his reasons to believe that this tax-payee had received entries of Rs.10.56 crores from M/s. ETA Logistics which turn outed to be a non-traceable entity. Learned counsel could hardly dispute that the Assessing Officer herein had indeed came across tangible information/material indicating the assessee to have received unsecured loans from M/s. ETA Logistics. The same has gone un-rebutted from the assessee’s side on facts as well as law during the course of hearing. The Revenue has drawn our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion on both these issues as follows :
3 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. 4 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. 5 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. 6 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. 4.1. The assessee fails in his instant legal ground therefore.
Next comes correctness of the impugned addition of unsecured loan amounting to Rs.8,77,47,700/- on merits as well. The CIT(A)'s detailed discussion upholding the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect reads as follows :
7 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. 8 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. 9 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. 10 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. 11 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. 12 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune.
Mr. Phadke has not only filed basic details of ITR acknowledgment, computation of income, financial statements and bank statements, but, also confirmation from M/s. Value Time Tie UP Pvt. Ltd., along with corresponding alleged ledgers that the unsecured loans in question had in fact been advanced through M/s. ETA Logistics. He further took us to the assessee’s paper book running into 99 pages in assessment year 2012-13 containing other relevant documents as well i.e., agreement to purchase land at Shirdi dated 29.06.2021, MOU dated 25.11.2010 with Mr. Sandeep Omprakash Koyate for loan, M/s. Value Time Tie UP Pvt. Ltd., ITR acknowledgments, financials and confirmation as well as this taxpayer’s statement dated 21.03.2017 recorded u/s. 130(1) of the Act to plead that all the three necessary ingredients of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of these cash credits stand duly discharged. He prayed for deleting the impugned addition therefore.
The Revenue has placed strong reliance on the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion extracted in the preceding paragraphs.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival contentions and find no merit in assessee’s stand. There could hardly be any dispute about the settled law regarding identity, genuineness and creditworthiness to be the three relevant parameters to be satisfied in case of cash credits in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decisions Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 461 (SC), inter alia, hold that any evidence tendered in income tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities, after removing all blinkers. And that mere filing of documentary evidence does not mean that the foregoing three parameters of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, and more particularly, the latter two, stand discharged. We advert to the relevant facts herein and note that the assessee has not been able to substantiate even the basic fact that M/s. Value Time Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., itself had advanced the 13 ITA.Nos.1786 & 1787/PUN./2018 Mr. Prashant Manikchand Dakle, Pune. impugned loan amount of Rs.8.77 crores in assessment year 2011-12 and Rs.1.35 crores in assessment year 2012-13, as the case may be. This is indeed coupled with the fact that this assessee could not even file the necessary details pertaining to the actual creditor entity M/s. ETA Logistics as it is evident from the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion. Faced with the situation, we conclude that both the learned lower authorities have rightly initiated sec.148/147 proceedings and made the impugned addition in assessee’s hands. The same stands upheld both in lead case ITA.No.1786/PUN./2018 as well as latter’s case in ITA.No.1787/PUN./2018 in very terms.
No other ground or argument has been raised before us.
These assessee’s twin appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st December, 2022.