NEW BONANZA IMPEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3181/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 September 2017AY 2012-133 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had reconciled the difference, which primarily arose from an opening balance. Therefore, the addition made during the year under consideration was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee showed a debit balance in its books for a loan from DSJ Communications Ltd., while DSJ Communications Ltd.'s books showed a credit balance. The difference of Rs. 1,92,350 was added as unexplained investment by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the difference in loan balances between the assessee and the creditor company constituted unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepari
Hearing: 13.9.2017Pronounced: 13.9.2017

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.2.2017 passed by the learned CIT(A)-2, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2012- 13. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ` 1,92,350/- relating to reconciliation difference.

2.

I heard the parties and perused the record. The Assessing Officer called for details of loan obtained by the assessee. It was noticed that the assessee has shown debit balance of ` 17.12 lakhs in the name of DSJ Communications Limited. However, ledger account of the assessee maintained in the books of DSJ Communications Ltd. disclosed credit balance of ` 19.31 lakhs. The Assessing Officer assessed the difference amount of ` 1,92,350/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also was not convinced with the reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee and accordingly he confirmed the addition.

3.

Learned AR submitted that the difference of ` 1,92,350/- has arisen on account of two entries. The Assessee has shown opening credit balance of ` 2

2 M/s. New Bonanza Impex Pvt. Ltd. lakhs in the account of DSJ Communications Ltd. Further the assessee has shown cheque payment of ` 7,650/- to DSJ Communications Ltd. on 23.11.201, the cumulative effect of both these entries has resulted in difference of ` 1,92,350/-. Accordingly, learned AR submitted that the assessee has duly reconciled the difference and in any case difference pertained to opening balance only. Accordingly he submitted that the impugned addition is not called for.

4.

On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A).

5.

Having heard the rival submissions, I am of the view that the assessee has reconciled the difference of ` 1,92,350/- and difference has occurred mainly on account of opening balance of ` 2 lakhs shown by the assessee. Hence, cause of action, if any, would not arise during the year under consideration. Accordingly, I am of the view that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the impugned addition. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 13.9.2017.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →