INDIAMONDS,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 18(1)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6066/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2012-133 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the lower authorities, finding that the loan providers lacked justifiable income and had prior cash deposits in their bank accounts before granting the loans. The surrounding circumstances indicated the genuineness of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to justify the creditworthiness of the loan providers.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash credit of Rs. 4,00,000/- was an unexplained cash credit and thus liable for addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

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(1)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, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 21.07.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2012- 13. 2. The grounds of appeal

reads as under:

1.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.4,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained cash credit.

2 M/s. Indiamonds 3. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition.

4.

Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

5.

I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing. Upon careful consideration, I find that the assessee has completely failed to justify the creditworthiness of the person granting loans to the extent added by the Assessing Officer. It has been clearly brought on record that these persons granting loan do not have justifiable income to grant the loans. Furthermore, there have been cash deposits in their bank account immediately prior to the granting of the loan. These facts cannot be ignored by the Revenue. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), the Revenue has not to put upon the blinkers but has to appreciate the surrounding circumstances. On the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the authorities below. Accordingly, I uphold the same.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →