DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI vs. URBAINIA SPACES PVT. LTD., MANDAWALI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2013/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh. Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member)3 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had filed two appeals (ITA No. 2013/Del/2024 and 2012/Del/2024) for the same assessment year, involving the same assessee and additions. Consequently, the present appeal (ITA No. 2013/Del/2024) was dismissed, with the other appeal to be taken up for hearing in due course.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions concerned advances received from customers (Rs. 12,12,10,380/-) and an unsecured loan from M/s Sagrika Seacraft Ltd. (Rs. 50,00,000/-), where the Revenue alleged failure to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of investors/lenders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted additions under Section 68 concerning unproven creditworthiness and genuineness of advances from customers and unsecured loans, in light of relevant judicial precedents.

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 BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Hearing: 22.07.2024Pronounced: 24.07.2024

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-26, New Delhi dated 20.02.2024.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.12,12,10,380/- on account of advance received from customers by stating that the assessee has duly discharged the onus that lay upon it u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of investor who have made investment in the assessee company during the course of assessment proceedings.

2. Whether on the facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in ignoring the facts that the assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the money received against expression of interest in the Project Urbainia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Booking amounting to Rs 2,31,61,925/- during the course of assessment proceedings.

3. Whether on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in ignoring the facts that the assessee has failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loan received from M/s Sagrika Seacraft Ltd. now known as Sagarika Produite Ltd. by the assessee amounting to Rs 50,00,000/- during the course of assessment proceedings.

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in observing that requisite details and evidences were filed by the assessee to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors.

5.

Whether on the facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in ignoring the facts that the creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender company i.e. M/s Sagrika Seacraft Ltd now known as Sagarika Produite Ltd from whom unsecured loan was received is not proved, despite various opportunities were granted during the course of assessment and remand proceedings.

6.

Whether on the facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the additions made by the AO, ignoring, the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in DCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. in civil appeal No. 29855 of 2018.

7.

Whether on the facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the additions ignoring the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1018/2011), wherein it is held that the transaction through bank accounts do not reflect the creditworthiness or even the genuineness of the transaction.”

3.

At the outset, we find that the Revenue has filed two appeals under and 2013/Del/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. From the grounds filed, it is observed that both the appeals pertain to the same year, for the same additions and for the same assessee. Hence, the ITA No. 2013/Del/2024 is hereby dismissed and ITA No.

Urbainia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. 2012/Del/2024 would be taken up for hearing in due course of time.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/07/2024.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →