SINGIRI SRIKANTH PADMAPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 12(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2662/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 December 2018AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the creditor's creditworthiness. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination and a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed to have received a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Hema Jain. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as an unexplained cash credit as Hema Jain lacked creditworthiness, citing her low bank balance and inability to be located at the given address. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the loan received by the assessee from Hema Jain constituted an unexplained cash credit, and whether the CIT(A) properly considered the evidence presented by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri. Sushma Harini, Advocate, Shri. Hari Govind, JCIT
Hearing: 03.12.2018Pronounced: 12.12.2018

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in dated 21.08.2017 for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Smt. Singiri Srikanth Padmapriya, the assessee, an employee, receiving salary from M/s. SSS Alloys Pvt. Ltd., is also having income from house property and capital gains and income from other sources.

While making the assessment for assessment year 2013-14, the assessee claimed to have received loans of Rs. About 54 lakhs from six persons. Out of which, the assessee satisfactorily explained the credit of five parties. In the case of Hema Jain, since, she has not furnished any return for the relevant assessment year, he issued summons and required the inspector to serve it. The inspector found that no such persons residing in the given address. The AO communicated this fact and on scrutinizing the bank account of Hema Jain, found that just one day before the date of loan to the assessee, two sums of Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- were deposited and the next day i.e., on 04.10.2012 she advanced Rs. 5,00,000/- to the assessee. But for this transaction, the average balance standing in her account stood at just Rs. 1173/-.

So, he held that the creditor lacks creditworthiness and in this regard, relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat & Delhi High Court decisions viz., Umesh Krishnani vs. ITO (2013) 35 Taxman.com 598 (Gujarat) and Blessing Construction vs ITO (2013) 32 Taxman.com 366 (Guj) and CIT vs Youth Construction (P) Ltd (2014) 44 Taxman.com 364 (Del), he assessed the credit which stood in the name of Hema Jain at Rs. 5,00,000/- as an unexplained cash credits u/s.

68.

Aggrieved, the assessee field an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

3.

Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal mainly challenging the order of the CIT(A) on the ground that although all necessary documents to proof the creditworthiness of creditor Smt.

Hema Jain were produced before the Ld. CIT(A), he grossly erred in his untenable conclusion.

4.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. We find that the CIT(A) records that during the appeal proceedings the assessee produced Income Tax computation statement for total income for Income Tax purpose in the case of Hema Jain/PAN:

AXZPJ2039E, copy of trial balance as on 31.03.2013, copy of capital account and copy of profit and loss account for the year ended 31.03.2013 the assessee also produced confirmation letter from Hema Jain having she advanced sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the assessee. Copy of PAN number and copy of bank account of Hema Jain with Vijaya Bank is also produced before the appeal the same has been duly considered and the appeal issue is adjudicated as under.

5.

In the finding, he has not applied mind with reference to the material furnished by the assessee. The assessee has also not placed the copies of those documents. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remit this issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh examination and passing a speaking order. The Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to seek appropriate report from the AO and decide the matter in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 12th day of December, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →