GANESH ANANDRAO SATALE,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3072/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 March 2022AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was allowed to present additional evidence regarding the genuineness of the loan transactions before the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in hotel business, had unsecured loans from family members in AY 2009-10. The AO initiated reassessment and added Rs. 28,82,900 under Section 68 for failing to substantiate the genuineness of these loans, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained unsecured loans was justified, and if the assessee should be allowed to submit additional evidence before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

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 Kishor Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06-10-2017 passed by the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur, in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The ld. AR raised two additional grounds challenging the initiation of re-assessment on the ground that the AO founded the initiation of reassessment on „reason to suspect‟ and not `reason to believe‟; and secondly, the competent authority granted approval in a mechanical manner. During the course of hearing, both these grounds were not pressed by ld. AR. These additional grounds are therefore, dismissed.

3.

The only issue raised on merits is against the confirmation of addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).

4.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in a hotel business. It transpired during the course of the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2012-13 that the assessee had obtained certain unsecured loans in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2009-10 under consideration. Since the assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of the loan transactions, the AO initiated re-assessment proceedings for the relevant year and thus made the addition of Rs.28,82,900 u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. At the outset, the ld. Counsel submitted that the relevant documentary evidence substantiating the genuineness of the loan transactions, which are mostly from family members, could not be placed before the lower authorities for certain reasons outside the control of assessee. A request was made for admitting the additional evidence now filed before the Tribunal in support of the genuineness of transactions. Since such additional evidence has not passed through the eyes of the AO, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things, if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. I order accordingly and direct the AO to re-examine the issue after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to file any further evidence in support of its case, as may be considered expedient.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th March, 2022.

1.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; ददिधांक Dated : 7th March, 2022 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीऱधर्थी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent; 2. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Kolhapur विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे / 5. DR „SMC‟, ITAT, Pune 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 03-03-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 07-03-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →