What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of creditors, noting that the assessee had now provided names, addresses, and PAN numbers. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The assessee's appeal concerned an addition of Rs. 5,13,155/- on account of loan transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's confirmations due to missing PAN numbers and addresses of creditors.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in rejecting loan confirmations solely for the absence of PAN and address, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to provide complete documentation.

Kalpesh K Shah vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM Shri Kalpesh K Shah

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh K Shah

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Hearing: 28/09/2017Pronounced: 04/10/2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):

This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-35, Mumbai dated 20/12/2012 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act.

In this appeal, assessee is aggrieved for upholding addition of Rs.5,13,155/- on account of loan transactions as shown in the balance sheet. The assessee filed certain confirmations; however, the same was rejected by the AO on the plea that there is no PAN Numer and address of the creditor.

By the impugned order, CIT(A) deleted part of the addition and confirm the same to the extent of Rs.5,13,155/- against which assessee is in further appeal before us.

Shri Kalpesh K Shah 4. Before us, assessee himself appeared who is a service class person. He submitted confirmation with respect to the following creditors duly mentioning name, address and PAN Number. Sr. Name Amount PAN NO. No. 1 S.B. Packaging 19950.00 AKVPP1191J 2 Sunny Sharma 19750.00 BEYPS9304E 3 Nilesh Pathak 19800.00 APJPP9865J 4 Saroj Traders 31000.00 AFAPP6190D 5 Deepak Vora 19900.00 6 Ajay Shah 19500.00 AACPS2287H 7 Vilesh Shah 19000.00 8 Kalpesh K Shah(HUF) 19700.00 AAJHK3499J 9 Pritesh Shah 19000.00 BHAPS0541J 10 Ramachandra Pathak 19700.00 AKVPP1191J 11 Kirtikant M Shah 19800.00 BPEPS2744P 12 Manisha Shah 10800.00 13 Brijal Shah 16000.00 ANAPG9191R 14 Priti K Shah 19900.00 AXBPS2488J 15 Indira K Shah 19800.00 BPAPS1184K 16 Raj Ajay Shah 19800.00 17 Bharat N. Shah (HUF) 19800.00 AAAHB0330E 18 Lala Ramchandra Pathak 19000.00 AKVPP1191J 19 Sweta Ajay Shah 19700.00 20 Bharat N Shah 19500.00 AAEPS0301C 21 Brijal Industries 19900.00 BPEPS2744P 22 Priti Vilesh Shah 19100.00 23 H.N. Pandey 19600.00 AFAPP6190D 24 Rekha Sunny Sharma 19500.00

It appears that due to reasons not within the control of the assessee, on earlier occasion, assessee could not furnish the PAN Number of creditors. All these documents filed before us goes to the root of the issue. In the substantial interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of the AO to verify each and every creditor in so far as the assessee has given their

KALPESH K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments