ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RAJ REFULLERS & FIRE SAFETY EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6495/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 December 2017AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary details regarding unsecured loans before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the claims.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, documents belonging to the assessee were found. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 52,62,694/- on account of unexplained increase in unsecured loans, as the assessee failed to provide details of the lenders. The CIT(A) deleted this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans without proper substantiation by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Smt. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)

O R D E R

PER R. K. PANDA, AM :

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 26.09.2014 of the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The notice issued by the Registry fixing the appeal for hearing was returned by the Postal Authorities with the remark “no such firm”. The assessee has also not taken any steps to intimate the change of address, if any. Even though the notice was served through the ld. DR still there was no response from the side of the assessee today by filing an adjournment petition or appearance. In view of the above, we proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that a search and seizure operation was carried out in Mahesh Mehta group of cases on 30.06.2009 during which certain documents belonging to the person other than the person searched u/s 132 of the I.T. Act were found and seized. On the basis of seized documents and after recording satisfaction, assessment proceedings u/s 153C were initiated by issuing notice. The assessee, in response to the said notice, stated that the return of income filed originally as per provision of section 139 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that there has been increase in unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.52,65,694/- during the year. The assessee failed to provide the details from whom unsecured loans have been taken and was not able to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer, therefore, invoked the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act and made addition of Rs.52,62,694/- to the total income of the assessee.

4.

In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under :- “3. The facts of the case and the grounds of appeal are the same in this AY as discussed in details in AY 2004-05 in Appeal No.336/13-14 decided vide order of even date. The only difference is that in this year there is no addition on account of increase in share application money. Also, that the amount of addition of Rs.52,62,694/- has been made on account of increase in unsecured loan, which is net of fresh loan of Rs.2,01,84,313/- raised from M/s Gunvardhan Vyapar Ltd., an existing assessee (PAN-AACV8561C), and repayment of all other outstanding loans, and the interest accrued on the outstanding/ repaid loans. The details filed during these proceedings have been examined and establish the claim of the appellant.”

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs.52,62,690/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of increase in unsecured loans. 2. (a) The order of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the ground of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

6.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record.

We find despite opportunities given by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee did not produce the details from whom unsecured loans have been taken and has not proved the ingredients of provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act. We find the ld. CIT(A) in a very cryptic order deleted the addition, the contents of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. Since the assessee had not filed the requisite details before the Assessing Officer, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the increase in the unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court at the time hearing itself i.e. on this 27th day of December, 2017.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →