MODLINE FINSTOCK PRIVATE LITMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 17(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8547/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish its relationship with the lenders as shareholders or provide supporting details during prior proceedings. While acknowledging that amounts from shareholders should not be prima facie treated as unexplained cash credits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is required to plead and prove its case, at its own risk and responsibility.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an NBFC, received loans totaling Rs. 21,55,000/- from four of its shareholders, which the lower authorities treated as unexplained cash credits. The assessee contended that it had discharged its primary onus regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of these loan creditors.

What were the issues?

Whether the amount of Rs. 21,55,000/- received as loans from shareholders can be treated as unexplained cash credits, and whether the assessee discharged its primary onus of proving identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CA and Ms. Neha Goel, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/12/2024Pronounced: 24/12/2024

O R D E R

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, New Delhi dated 31.07.2019 in case No. CIT(A), Delhi- 37/10160/2017-18 in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).

2.

Heard both parties at length. Case files perused.

3.

Coming straightaway to the assessee's sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities action treating an amount of Rs. 21,55,000/- as unexplained cash credits, Mr. Bhardwaj submits that this appellant is infact a Non-banking Financial Company (NBFC) and the loans have come from four parties Sumitra Verma, narender Singh, Anubhav Chauhan and Shashi Goel; involving varying sums, who happen to be it’s shareholders. And also that it

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →