DHIWISHA REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6065/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 June 2020AY 2014-153 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by showing the loan was received and repaid by account payee cheque and was reflected in the tax audit report. The Assessing Officer had not made out a cogent basis for the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee showed an unsecured loan of Rs. 9 lakhs. The Assessing Officer added this amount as a cash credit under Section 68 because a notice to the loan creditor was returned unserved. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of unsecured loan under Section 68 was justified solely on the basis of a returned unserved notice to the creditor, despite the loan being routed through account payee cheques.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian
For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya anjaria
Hearing: 17.02.2020Pronounced: 18.06.2020

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 11/5/2018. It pertains to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The solitary issue raised is the disallowance of unsecured loan of Rs. 9 lakhs under section 68 of the income tax act, and also the consequential interest of Rs. 30,180/-

3.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee has shown unsecured loan to the tune of Rs. 17.44 crores. During the course of assessment the assessing officer issued notices under section 133(6). He noted that one of the loan creditors i.e. M/s. Krishna Fashion World did not respond and the letter came back unserved. The assessing officer required the assessee to prove the veracity of the loan creditor. The assessee responded that it had obtained the unsecured loan through account pay cheque. This was duly reflected in the tax audit report. That the said sum was subsequently returned by account pay cheque. The assessing officer was not satisfied, he added the aforesaid sum as cash credit under section 68 of the income tax act. He also disallowed the interest therein.

4.

Against the order assessee appeal before the learned commission of income tax appeals. The learned Commissioner of income tax appeals confirmed the order of the assessing officer.

5.

Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

6.

I have heard the parties and perused the records. I find that assessee officer has disallowed the unsecured loan of Rs. 9 lakhs out of Rs. 17.44 crores unsecured loan on the sole basis that notice issued under section 133(6) has returned unserved. It is not the case of the assessing officer that assessing officer has issued notice u/s. 131(1) or has enquired any other aspect the loan. The assessee has duly submitted that the loan was taken by account pay cheque. That it was reflected in the tax audit report. The same was subsequently repaid by account pay. In my considered opinion the assessee in this case has discharged the onus. The Assessing Officer has not made out cogent basis for addition as unsecured loan under section 68. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed.

Order has been pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules on 18.6.2020.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →