Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH
Aayakr ApIla saM./ (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Shri Milapchand Mehta The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Gaurav Metal) Kalyan Ward 19(2)(3), Room No. 3rd Steel Centre, Floor, 221, Matru mandir, Tardeo Vs. Lokhandwala Building, Road, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 004 400 007 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAPPM0870R अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Gautam Salecha, AR प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri SK Bepari, DR ुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 23.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 23.10.2018 AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-52/IT-95/ITO-19(2)(3)/17 vide dated 01.01.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(3), Mumbai (in short ‘ITO’/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide dated 24.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO making adding of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. For this assessee has raised the following 2 grounds: -
“1. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) erred in considering loans taken by the appellant as unexplained cash credit when appellant has fulfilled all the condition of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in understanding that ITR acknw., bank Passbook, Personal Capital A/c and Statement of Affairs of parties were submitted at Assessment Level and AO didn’t doubted such documents to substantiate that loan transactions are genuine.”
I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I find that assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 4,54,000/- from Shantidevi Rajendra Mehta, amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs from Rajendra J Mehta and Rs. 2 lacs from Rajendra J Mehta, HUF. The AO added this cash credits as unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs. 10 lacs and consequential interest claimed to have been paid to these parties amounting to Rs. 90,000/- was disallowed. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal.
I have gone through the facts of the case and noticed unusual things from Bank statement, wherein it is noticed that Shantidevi Rajendra Mehta, who deposited cash of Rs. 4.54 lacs on various dates just immediate before advancing this loan of Rs. 4.54 lacs. These cash deposited in the bank account of bank of Baroda account No. 13100100012949 between the dates 13.06.2011 to 28.06.2011 and advanced these amounts during these period only. Similarly, Shri Rajendra J Mehta deposited cash of ₹ 3.5 lacs on various dates and advanced the loan of ₹ 3.5 lacs immediate on next date or one or two days after that. Similarly, Rajendra J Mehta, HUF also deposited cash of Rs. 2,03,000/- in this period and advanced the loan of Rs. 2 lacs to the assessee on the next date. This has been verified from the bank statements of these loan creditors namely Shantidevi Rajendra Mehta, Rajendra J Mehta, Rajendra J Mehta HUF. The assessee is unable to prove the source of these cash deposits by these parties in their respective bank account and in the absence of any details simply filing acknowledgement of return, computation of income will not prove the source of credits. Accordingly, I am of the view that the AO and CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition and I uphold the same. The appeal of assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23-10-2018. AadoSa kI GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 23-10-2018 kao kI ga[- .