INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY DWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 141/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2019AY 2009-106 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to loan repayment from Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., stating no need to prove the source of source for the repayment. For flat bookings, the Tribunal directed the assessee to provide documents to the AO for verification.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of additions made under Section 68 for amounts received by the assessee from M/s. Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and from individuals for flat bookings. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment and made additions due to unexplained cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was required to prove the source of funds in the hands of the lender for loan repayment under Section 68, and whether the CIT(A) was justified in directing the assessee to provide further documentation for flat booking receipts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Lasani, AR
For Respondent: Mr. B. Satyanarayan Raju, DR, Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Lasani, AR
Hearing: 17/01/2019Pronounced: 30/01/2019

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

The grounds of appeal

filed by the Revenue read as under:

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the I.T.

M/s Vijay Dwellers Act of Rs.13,48,00,000/- received by the assesse from M/s. Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no requirement for assesse to prove the source of funds in the hands of M/s. Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., because this was a case of repayment of loan given in the financial year 2007-08 by the assesse.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to see that loan money given earlier was not lying dormant in bank account of M/s. Prakrutt Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., to be "returned" this year and was applied elsewhere necessitating fresh, flow of funds even for repayment.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) failed to see that the amounts were returned in 14 transactions over the year in amounts varying from Rs.2,50,000 to Rs.50,00,000 and sources of funds for each such transfer was to be explained as it was part of the assesse group company and rotation of funds among group concerns is seen.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) 's order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the Assessing Officer (AO), on receipt of information from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Mumbai, noticed that a total amount of Rs.14,78,00,000/- has been credited in the bank account of the assessee from various concerns including credits from the group concern i.e. Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On that basis, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2016 to the assessee. In response to a query raised by the AO during the reassessment proceedings, the assessee filed a reply dated 19.12.2016, which is reproduced as under: “With reference to the above subject matter and as directed vide your aforesaid notice we confirm that the amount received from various parties M/s Vijay Dwellers M/s Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rashmikant M. Shah & from Dharmendra Bhanushali & Tulsi Bhanushali & from M/s New Park Sun Gardens. Amount received from Mr. Rashmikant M. Shah (Director) & from M/s New Park Sun Gardens is amount received as unsecured loan. However, Amount received from M/s Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is current liability in subsequent years and the said liability of M/s Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is repaid. Amount received from Mr. Dharmendra Bhanushali & Tulsi Bhanushali is towards booking of flat No. 501 & 502 and the abovesaid amount is shown in the balance sheet as an advances received towards flat.” However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee for the reason that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the Director and the related parties were not proved along with any supporting documentary evidence. Therefore, the AO made an addition of Rs.14,78,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted additional evidence which could not be filed before the AO. On receipt of it, the Ld. CIT(A) sent a copy of it to the AO and called for a remand report. After the receipt of the remand report from the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) forwarded a copy of it to the assessee for its comments. The assessee filed a reply dated 07.08.2017. As regards the addition of Rs.13,48,00,000/- made by the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) held as under:

M/s Vijay Dwellers “5.2 So far as receipt of sum of Rs.13,48,50,000/- from Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. is concerned, the AO has accepted the claim of the appellant that the said sum was received from Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. by the appellant. However, the only objection of the AO was that the source of funds in the hands of Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. has not been explained by the appellant. Since this is a case for repayment of loan given by the appellant, there is no requirement for the appellant to prove the source of funds in the hands of Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.13,48,50,000/- made in the assessment order in respect of receipt of Rs.13,48,50,000/- from Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd.” 4.1 As regards the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) held as under: “So far as receipt of sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from Shri Dhamendra Bhanushali and receipt of sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from Ms. Tulsiben Bhanushali is concerned, the appellant has filed copies of cheques issued by these parties, confirmation letters from these parties as well as the registered agreement of sale of flats with these parties. Accordingly, the additions made under section 68 of the IT act in respect of sums received from these parties are liable to be deleted. However, the copies of confirmation and the copies of the cheques issued by these parties were not available before the AO, though the relevant registered agreements of sale were made available to the AO. Therefore, the appellant is directed to file a copy of these documents before the AO who shall satisfy himself regarding the correctness of the documents filed by the appellant and delete the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made in the assessment order in respect of receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- from Shri Dharmendra Bhanushali and also delete the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- from Ms. Tulsiben Bhanushali, if the documents filed by the appellant are found to be correct.”

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →