MANOJ KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1872/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 November 2017AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not commented on the numerous documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision after considering these documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an addition of Rs. 18.75 Lacs made under Section 68 on account of cash credits from four loan creditors. The assessee argued that various documents proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for cash credits was justified, considering the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC-B’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of CIT (A) – 5, Bangalore dated 02.06.2017 for A. Y. 2012 – 13.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 10 grounds but effective grievance on merit is only one about addition of Rs. 18.75 Lacs u/sc 68 in respect of cash credit from four loan creditors.

3.

Learned AR of the assessee submitted that as per Para 5 of the impugned order of CIT (A), he says that the assessee could not prove the identity and creditworthiness of these four loan creditors and the genuineness of the transaction but several documents were produced before him and before the AO in this regard which are available in Annexure – a of the Appeal Memo on pages 8 to 38 being Income Tax returns, FINNCIAL STATEMENTS, BANK PASS Book and balance Confirmation letters of these four loan creditors and there is no comment by him in respect of these documents and therefore, this addition should be deleted. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions. I Find that various documents in respect of these four loan creditors were produced before the AO & CIT (A) such as Income Tax returns, FINNCIAL STATEMENTS, BANK PASS Book and balance Confirmation letters and as per the order of CIT 9A), there is no comment by him in respect of these documents. Under these facts, I set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision with the direction that he should pass fresh speaking and reasoned order as per law in the light of these documents after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →