M/S. KUNDU PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1603/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 March 2019AY 2014-152 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries from the creditors regarding the genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal deleted the addition made on this count.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2014-15. The lower authorities treated an unsecured loan of ₹17.38 lac as bogus and unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the unsecured loan treated as bogus and unexplained cash credit under Section 68 is valid when the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries from the creditors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6 Kolkata’s order dated 04.05.2018 passed in case No. CIT(A), Kol-6/10205/2016-17, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

I find during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating its unsecured loan amounting to ₹17.38 lac as received from relatives of the director as bogus and unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. Case file suggests that assessee had placed on record banking challan details, amounts, corresponding debit, PAN of the eight parties in issue along with loan confirmation certificates coming from all of them addressed to the Assessing Officer. Learned Departmental Representative fails to rebut the fact that the Assessing Officer did not even issue sec. 133(6) process to any ITA No.1603/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 M/s Kundu Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Cir-23(1), HGY Page 2 of the said parties. This tribunal’s in Jyoti Saraf vs. ITO in ITA No.2677/Kol/2013 decided on 15.07.2014 this note of hon'ble jurisdictional high court in CIT vs. M/s Dataware Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.263 of 2011, GA No.2856 of 2011 decided on 21.09.2011 that it is for the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary enquiries from the assess creditors in issue regarding genuineness of the loan transactions. I reiterate that Assessing Officer in the instant case has nowhere taken recourse such an exercise. I therefore delete the impugned addition on this count alone.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 15/03/2019 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 15/03/2019 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-M/s Kundu Projects Pvt. Ltd., C/o Dr. Nimai Chand Pallishri Arambagh, Hooghly-712601

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-ACIT, Cir-23(1), Aayakar Bhawan, G.T.Road, Khadina More, Chinsura, Hooghly-712101 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु%त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु%त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय ")त)न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड+ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता ।

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →