SACHIN SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4754/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 September 2019AY 2013-145 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 disclosed the identity of the HUFs and the transactions were through banking channels. The AO did not conduct any independent inquiry from the creditors. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee received loans totaling Rs. 8,07,000 from four HUFs through cheques. The Assessing Officer treated these loans as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors.

What were the issues?

Whether loans received through banking channels from disclosed parties can be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 when the AO fails to conduct independent inquiries from the creditors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 03/09/2019Pronounced: 12/09/2019

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Pune [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “

1. 1. 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.8,07,000/ AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF IT ACT. 2 The LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO TAKE COGNISANCE OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE HIM AND MADE ADDITION WITH A PREJUDICED MIND.

3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED AND JUSTICE TO BE GIVEN TO YOUR APPELLANT. A.Y.2013-14 2.

1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST OF RS.96,840/-. 2.THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE INTEREST WITH A PREJUDICED MIND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID LOANS WERE OBTAINED IN MARCH ONLY.

3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED AND JUSTICE TO BE GIVEN TO YOUR APPELLANT.

4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDALTER OR AMEND ANY OF TE ABOVE FACTS/GROUNDS OF APPEAL.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 18.09.2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.11,44,190/- for the A.Y. 2013-14. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.The case was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. On verification, it was observed that the assessee has taken the loan from the following parties: -

(i) Bhagwant (HUF):- Cash deposited for Rs.1,15,000/- 23.03.2013 and cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- issued to assessee on 23.03.2013 as loan.

(ii) Shrimant Jadhav (HUF):- Cash deposited for Rs.21,300+53,700/- on 22.03.2013 and Rs.1,35,000/- on 28.03.2013 and cheque issued to assessee for 2,15,000/- on 28.03.2013 as loan.

(iii) Ankush Jadhav (HUF):- Cash deposited for Rs.82,000/- on 22.03.2013 and interest receipt of Rs.1,40,000/- from the assessee received on 22.03.2013 and cheque given for 2,25,000/- to assessee an 28.03.2013 as loan.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →