SH DEEPAK MARUTI CHAVAN,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 544/PUN/2021Status: HeardITAT Pune10 March 2022AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO to decide afresh. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to produce Mr. Dashwant Kisan Chavan to support the genuineness of the transaction.

What were the facts?

The assessee received an advance of Rs. 17.00 lakh from his father, which was allegedly sourced from Mr. Dashwant Kisan Chavan. The AO added this amount to the assessee's income as the genuineness and source could not be fully substantiated.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 17.00 lakh under Section 68 was justified without allowing the assessee to produce the ultimate source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Joshi
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) on 25-08-2021 in relation to the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17.00 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.68 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has been engaged in the business of Spare parts and Transport. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that a sum of Rs.17.00 lakh was credited to the assessee’s capital account, by showing it as an advance received from his father, Mr. Maruti B.

1.

Chavan. On being called upon to prove the genuineness of the credit, the assessee furnished the confirmation from his father. No other substantial evidence in support of the genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the creditor was filed. The assessee was requested to produce Mr. Maruti B. Chavan. After certain hitches, finally, Mr. Maruti B. Chavan was produced on 01-12- 2016, whose statement was recorded by the AO u/s.131 of the Act.

He affirmed having advanced a sum of Rs.17.00 lakh to his son Mr. Deepak Maruti Chavan (the assessee). Source of the payment was shown as amount received by him from one Mr. Dashwant Kisan Chavan, A/P.Bhose, which was then passed over to the assessee. The AO required the assessee to produce Mr. Dashwant Kisan Chavan. The assessee submitted that Mr. Dashwant Kisan Chavan was not available and was likely to return after one month’s period. Considering the fact that the assessment was getting time barred, the AO made the addition of Rs.17.00 lakh, which came to be affirmed in the first appeal. The assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal against the said sustenance.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. The case of the assessee is that he received a sum of Rs.17.00 lakh from Mr. Dashwant Kisan Chavan through his father. However, the said person could not be produced because of his non-availability at the material time when the assessment was in progress and getting time barred. The ld. AR requested for granting one more opportunity to produce Mr. Dashwant Kisan Chavan in support of the genuineness of the transaction. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be better served if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. I order accordingly and direct him to decide this issue afresh after allowing an opportunity to the assessee for producing Mr. Dashwant Kisan Chavan in support of the genuineness of the transaction.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th March, 2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →