Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH - ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI B.P. JAIN
This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 21st March, 2016 for assessment year 2011-12, challenging the addition of AND Stay No. 276/Del/2016 Shri Gajraj Singh vs. DCIT Rs. 33,00,000/- on account of cash deposit u/s 68 of the I.T.
Act.
Briefly the facts of the case are that Assessing Officer noticed that assessee received huge amount of Rs. 33,00,000/-. The assesse stated that an amount was related to loan repayment by different parties which were earlier given by the assessee in the year 2007-08 and 2008-09. The summary of the same is noted in the impugned orders to show that in earlier years loan was given by assessee to Shri Vijay Kumar, Smt. Savita, Shri Vinod Kumar, Shri Chattar Singh and Shri Niranjan Lal. The assessee in the year under appeal received back the amount of loan of Rs. 33,00,000/-.
The Assessing Officer in the case of Smt. Savita accepted the return of repayment of loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was received through cheque. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- because the nature and source of receipt is not satisfactorily explained by assessee. The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that the amount was received that from various creditors in assessment year under appeal which was friendly loan. During the remand
AND Stay No. 276/Del/2016 Shri Gajraj Singh vs. DCIT proceedings Assessing Officer summoned all the parties above, however three of them appeared before Assessing Officer namely Shri Vinod Kumar, Shri Chhattar Singh and Shri Niranjan Lal and their statements have been recorded in which they have admitted that cash was only repayment of loan to the assessee which were taken in earlier years.
However in respect of Shri Vijay Kumar and Smt. Savita, it was submitted that summons could not be served upon them because both of them being husband and wife admitted in Fortis Hospital for the purpose of Kidney transplant operation.
Ld. CIT(A) however noted that the assessee has not explained source of cash. The addition was confirmed and appeal of assessee has been dismissed
After considering rival submissions we are of the view addition is wholly unjustified. It is admitted fact that assessee has given loans to five parties in the year 2007-08 and 2008-
The assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 33,00,000/- has been received back as repayment of the loans. In the case of Smt. Savita the repayment of Rs. 20,00,000/- through cheque has not been doubted by the AND Stay No. 276/Del/2016 Shri Gajraj Singh vs. DCIT Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in the office note attached with the assessment order referred the information to the concerned Assessing Officer for taking action against the creditors for repayment of loans exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in violation of section 269 of the Act. This will prove that Assessign Officer was satisfied that these were genuine loan repayment by the above creditors to the assessee. Even three of the creditors appeared before Assessing Officer in remand proceedings have confirmed repayment of loan amount to the assessee. In the case of two other creditor Shir Vijay Kumar and Smt Savita, they could not appear in the remand proceedings because they were admitted in Fortis Hospital for Kidney transplant operation. So no adverse inference should be drawn. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and above discussion, assessee is able to prove that there was a genuine repayment of loan amounts to the assessee which has been proved by the creditors in their statements. Therefore addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- against the assessee is wholly unjustified. The assessee is able to explain the source of the amount received as repayment of loan. In AND Stay No. 276/Del/2016 Shri Gajraj Singh vs. DCIT this view of matter, we set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition of Rs. 33,00,000/-.
In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Stay application stands infructuous.
Pronounced in the Open Court.