MRS. AKANSHA SHARDA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1634/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 June 2017AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the loan was genuine as the partner of M/s Monei Matters confirmed its advancement and the firm disclosed it as receivable in its balance sheet. The Tribunal also found the cash deposit of Rs. 50,231/- to be explained, considering the joint operation of the bank account by the assessee and her husband.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 18,95,000/- loan taken by the assessee from M/s Monei Matters, considering it not genuine as no interest was charged. The AO also added Rs. 50,231/- as unexplained cash credit in the bank account.

What were the issues?

Whether the loan advanced to the assessee was genuine, and whether the cash credits in the bank account were sufficiently explained.

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 : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE-

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms Bedobani, DR
Hearing: 01.06.2017Pronounced: 02.06.2017

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 25.01.2016 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The first issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.18,95,000/-.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of this issue are that the Assessing Officer found during the course of assessment proceedings that a loan was taken by the assessee from M/s Monei Matters amounting to Rs.18,95,000/- which was subsequently transferred to M/s Sharda Forging and Stamping Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was called upon to produce a partner of M/s Monie Matters.

Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta appeared on behalf of M/s Monie Matters. His statement was recorded by the AO, who confirmed to have advanced the loan amounting to Rs.10 lac to the assessee and Rs.8,95,000/- to Shri Anirudh Sharma, husband of the assessee. As the interest was not charged, the Assessing Officer held that the loan was not genuine. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved against the addition.

4.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. It is clear that the assessee and her husband operated a joint bank account in which a sum of Rs.18,95,000/- was deposited for a further transfer to M/s Sharda Forting and Stamping Pvt. Ltd. On the request of the Assessing Officer, the assessee produced Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, a partner of M/s Monie Matters whose statement was recorded on 26.09.2014. A copy of such statement has been placed at page 14 onwards of the paper book. In response to a question whether the amount was 2 advanced to the assessee, Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta submitted that a sum of Rs.10 lac was given to the assessee and Rs.8,95,000/- to Shri Anirudh Sharda through banking channel. On a further question, it was stated that the amount was still due and the firm disclosed this amount as receivable in its balance sheet. On another question as to why no interest was received, it was replied that interest will be received at the time of the return of money.

It was further stated that M/s Monie Matter was a regular income-tax assessee filing returns for more than 10 years. A copy of the return for the relevant assessment year 2009-10, being the year under consideration, was filed along with the balance sheet in which the amount was shown as receivable. It is apparent from the statement of Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta that not only the advancing of loan was confirmed, but also all the queries of the AO were satisfactorily replied. M/s Monie Matters is a firm engaged in advancing loans. Return for the relevant assessment year was filed by the said firm in which the amount advanced to the assessee was shown as receivable. Under these circumstances, I am unable to appreciate as to how the amount can be considered as non-genuine. Merely because interest was not received, cannot be a reason to cast doubt on the genuineness of the loan, more so when the partner of M/s Monie Matters specifically submitted that the interest will be received along with the repayment of loan. I, therefore, order for the deletion of addition of Rs.18,95,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A).

5.

Another ground is against the sustenance of addition of Rs.50,231/-.

The facts apropos this ground as recorded on the last page of the assessment order are that the AO found various credits in the bank account totaling Rs.24,44,000/-. It was noticed that the assessee received salary of Rs.3,15,000/-, other income of Rs.1,08,550/- and loan of Rs.18,95,000, total of which stood at Rs.23,94,246/-. The differential amount of Rs.50,231/- (Rs.24,44,777/- minus Rs.23,94,246/-) was added. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition.

6.

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the addition of Rs.50,231/- has been made simply by seeing the deposits in the bank account vis-a-vis the receipts of the assessee. What is relevant to note in this case is that this bank account was, admittedly, operated jointly by the assessee and her husband. The Assessing Officer has considered only the receipts of the assessee by ignoring that this account was jointly operated by the assessee’s husband also whose sources of income were not taken into consideration. Apart from that, there are certain withdrawals also from the said bank account, which have not been taken into consideration. In the given circumstances, I am satisfied that the amount of cash deposit in the bank is duly explained.

This addition is directed to be deleted. 7. The first two grounds were not pressed by the ld. AR. The same are dismissed as not pressed.

8.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 02nd June, 2017.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →