ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TOY- N- TOY INTERNATIONAL, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3724/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2017AY 2003-043 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided confirmations, bank details, cheque numbers, and PAN of the creditors, which were not disputed, no addition could be made. The addition was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 12,43,000/- from four individuals. The Assessing Officer made an addition on the grounds that these individuals lacked the capacity to provide loans, despite the assessee furnishing confirmations, PAN, and other documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of alleged unexplained cash credits is justified when the assessee has provided all necessary documentation 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, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Adv
Hearing: 27.11.2017Pronounced: 29.11.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2009-10] Shri Shyam Sundar Mittal Vs. The J.C.I.T. M/s Mittal Trading Corporation Bhiwani C/o S.K. Bansal, CA Kochar Market, First Floor Jhajjar Road, Rohtak PAN : ABPPM 4574 P [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 27.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2017 Assessee by : Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Adv Revenue by : Shri Atiq Ahmed Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A), Rohtak vide order dated 02.04.2014 for A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

Ground Nos. 3 and 4 have not been pressed by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed.

4. The only issue in Ground No. 2 has been contested which by the assessee which reads as under:

2 “2. That the Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making an addition of Rs. 12,43,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credits in various names u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]”.

4.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 12,43,000/- from four persons, namely, Shri Shyam Sunder Mittal, Smt. Sushila Mittal, Shri Savitri Mittal and Smt. Kanta Mittal. The Assessing Officer made the addition of the above amount on the ground that these persons do not have the capability of giving loans to the assessee company though the confirmations, PAN and other documents were filed, which have not been disputed. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Since the assessee has placed on record the confirmations from the creditors, their bank accounts, their cheque numbers, PAN and assessment particulars, which are not in dispute, no addition can be made under such facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2017.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →