SH. SURINDER KUMAR JAIN,KARNAL vs. ACIT, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3024/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 June 2018AY 2009-104 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT noted that a coordinate bench had previously quashed the order passed by the CIT under Section 263. Consequently, the assessment framed and the subsequent appeal became infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 56,85,000 on account of unsecured loans. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unsecured loans is sustainable when the order initiating reassessment proceedings (under Section 263) has been quashed. Whether the assessee has discharged the burden under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jain, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR
Hearing: 03.07.2019

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

Appellant, Shri Surinder Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Karnal qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts.

3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.56,85,000/- made by the AO on account of the unsecured loans raised by the assessee during the year. (ii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the above addition by arbitrarily rejecting the explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO despite the fact that the burden as contemplated under Section 68 of the Act about the nature and source of the deposit has' been explained by the assessee. (ii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source or origin of origin of a deposit.”

2.

Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Consequent to the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 24.02.2014, Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act making addition of Rs.56,85,000/- on account of unsecured loans raised by the assessee during the year under assessment on his failure to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans and thereby assessed the income at Rs.60,48,640/-.

3.

Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.

4.

We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

At the very outset, it is brought to our notice by the ld. AR for the assessee that vide order dated 06.10.2016, copy of order available at pages 1 to 34 of the paper book, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the ld. CIT, Karnal u/s 263 of the Act. 6. In view of the admitted fact that since order passed by the ld. CIT, Karnal u/s 263 of the Act has been quashed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, consequent assessment framed by the AO and further appeal filed before the ld. CIT (A) in which impugned order has been passed, has since become infructuous and needs no adjudication. Consequently, present appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed having been become infructuous. Order pronounced in open court on this 11th day of July, 2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →