Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘I’ BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM
आदेश / O R D E R
PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-47, Mumbai, dated 21.01.2016, which in itself arises from the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, (for short ‘Act’), dated 29.03.2014. The P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia revenue assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23,00,000/- u/s 68 by deciding that the assessee has discharged onus of proving the creditworthiness of the lenders without considering the fact that confirmation, bank statement and PAN only prove the identity and not the creditworthiness of the lenders.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that the income of the lenders as reflected in their returns are not communicate to the amount of loans given by them, which itself gives rise to doubting their creditworthiness.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that the AO has enumerated in para 2 of the assessment order, the basis on which it is concluded that the loans are not genuine.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing interest of Rs.15,58,248/- on unsecured loans which are not considered to be genuine.
5. The appellant crave leave to add, to amend, alter, substitute or modify any of the above ground or add a fresh ground as and when found necessary either before or at the time of hearing.”
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, had e-filed his ‘return of income’ for A.Y 2011-12 on 22.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 110/-. The return of income was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the ‘Act’. Thereafter the case of the assessee was taken for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2). The income of the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3), vide order dated. 29.03.2014, and the following additions were made in his hands:-
Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Addition u/s 68. Rs. 31,50,000/- 2 Disallowance of Interest on ‘Unsecured Rs.15,58,248/- loan’
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia 3. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions of the assessee in the backdrop of the facts case, therein dealt with the respective additions made by the A.O, as under:-
ADDITION U/S 68 : RS. 31,50,000/- (A). MANJU M. JAIN : RS. 4,50,000/- 1. The assessee during the course of the appellate proceedings furnished with the CIT(A) the following details which were already placed on the record of the A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings:
S.No Documents Submitted by the Assessee (1) Documents filed by the assessee vide letter dated: 17.12.2003: (i). Name, Address and PAN No. of the Party (ii). Loan confirmation for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. (iii). Copy of Form 16A. (iv). Copy of PAN Card.
2. The assessee further in order to remove any scope of doubt as regards genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid loan transaction, therein placed on record of the CIT(A) the complete details as regards the repayment of the aforesaid loan alongwith the outstanding balances, as under : Details of Repayment of Loan Date Amount Cheque No. Bank 23.08.2010 Rs.15,00,000/- RTGS Apna Sahkari Bank 01.10.2010 Rs. 2,00,000/- RTGS State Bank Of Hyderabad. 19.10.2010 Rs. 2,50,000/- RTGS State Bank of Hyderabad.
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia 3. That still further the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the complete details as regards the income-tax credentials alongwith the source from where the aforesaid loan was advanced by the abovementioned party, was furnished by the lendor party with the A.O, as under:-
S.No Details (1) Letter filed on 12/02/2014 by the abovementioned party alongwith the following documents: (i). Name, address and A.O ward where she was being assessed. (ii).Acknowledgement of the ‘Return of income’ alongwith the e Computation of income for A.Y. 2011-12. (iii). Loan Confirmation for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. (iv). Bank Passbook showing payment and repayment entries. (v). TDS Certificate (2) Letter filed on 22/03/2014 by the abovementioned party explaining the Source of funds and other documents: (i). ‘Return of income’ and Computation of income for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2012-13. (ii). Copy of loan confirmation for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2012. (iii). Sources of funds from where the loan was advanced: Particulars Date Amount Haresh Majethia 01.10.2010 Rs. 2,00,000/- Mukesh P. Chauhdhari 29.12.2010 Rs. 2,50,000/- Total Rs. 4,50,000/-
4. The assessee further during the course of the appellate proceedings rebutted the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards the creditworthiness of the aforesaid lendor, and submitted as under:-
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia (i). The copy of the ‘return of income’ alongwith the computation of income of the lendor for A.Y. 2011-12 furnished with the A.O duly reflected that the latter had a total income of Rs. 7,66,460/-.
(ii). The copy of the bank statement of the lender for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 highlighted the source of funds and the fact that the payment was made through account payee cheques.
(iii). The ‘Source of funds’ from where the lender had advanced the amount to the assessee was also furnished with the A.O.
(B). MONITA S. BULBULE : RS. 1,00,000/-
1. The assessee during the course of the appellate proceedings furnished with the CIT(A) the following details which were already placed on record of the A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings:
S.No Documents Submitted by the Assessee (1) Documents filed by the assessee vide letter dated: 17.12.2013: (i). Name, Address and PAN No. of the Party (ii). Loan confirmation for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.
2. The assessee further in order to remove any scope of doubt as regards the genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid loan transaction, therein placed on record of the CIT(A) the complete details as regards the repayment of the aforesaid loan , as under :
Details of Repayment of Loan Date Amount Cheque No. Bank 03.09.2010 Rs.1,00,000/- 013393 Apna Sahkari Bank
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia 3. That still further the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the complete details as regards the income-tax credentials alongwith the source from where the aforesaid loan was advanced by the abovementioned party, was furnished by the lendor party with the A.O, as under:-
S.No Details (1) Letter filed on 12/02/2014 by the abovementioned party alongwith the following documents: (i). Name, address and A.O ward where she was being assessed. (ii). Copy of PAN Card. (iii).Acknowledgement of the ‘Return of income’ alongwith the e Computation of income for A.Y. 2011-12. (iii). Loan Confirmation for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. (iv). Bank Passbook showing payment and repayment entries.
(2) Letter filed on 26/03/2014 by the abovementioned party explaining the Source of funds.
4. The assessee further during the course of the appellate proceedings submitted that as the amount of Rs. 1 lac wsa advanced by the aforesaid lendor vide payees account cheque on 21.07.2010 from the maturity proceeds of her ‘Fixed deposit’ of Rs. 1,09,511/- which werereceived by her on 10.07.2010, therefore, there was no reason for treating the said amount as an unexplained ‘Cash credit’ in the hands of the assessee u/s 68.
(C). DARSHAN R. SHAH : RS. 1,00,000/- 1. The assessee during the course of the appellate proceedings furnished with the CIT(A) the following details which were already
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia placed on the record of the A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings:
S.No Documents Submitted by the Assessee (1) Documents filed by the assessee vide letter dated: 17.12.2013: (i). Name, Address and PAN No. of the Party (ii).Acknowledgement of the ‘return of income’ alongwith the Computation of income for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12. (iii). ‘Balance sheet’ as on 31.03.2011. (iv). Bank passbook showing payment and repayment entries.
2. The assessee further in order to remove any scope of doubt as regards genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid loan transaction, therein placed on the record of the CIT(A) the complete details as regards the repayment of the aforesaid loan ,as under : Details of Repayment of Loan Date Amount Cheque No. Bank 19.03.2011 Rs.1,00,000/- 058466 Apna Sahkari Bank
3. That still further the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the complete details as regards the income-tax credentials alongwith the source from where the aforesaid loan was advanced by the abovementioned party was furnished by the lendor party with the A.O, as under:-
S.No Details (1) Letter filed on 11/01/2014 by the abovementioned party in responsee to summons dated. 23.12.2013, alongwith the following documents: (i). Name, address and A.O ward where she was being assessed. (ii). Copy of PAN Card. (iii).Acknowledgement of the ‘Return of income’ alongwith the Computation
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia of income for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. (iii). Leadger account for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012. (iv). Bank Passbook showing payment and repayment entries.
(2) Letter filed on 25/03/2014 by the abovementioned party explaining the Source of funds. It was submitted that the amount was advanced out of the amount of Rs. 1,00,388/-which was received by the lender from LIC towards the death claim of his mother Mrs. Rekha R. Shah on 09.04.2010, vide Cheque No. 465872.
4. The assessee further during the course of the appellate proceedings submitted that as the amount of Rs. 1 lac was advanced by the aforesaid lendor vide payee account Cheque on 16.04.2010, out of the amount of Rs. 1,00,388/-which was received by the lendor from LIC ,being the death claim of his mother Mrs. Rekha R. Shah on 09.04.2010, vide Cheque No. 465872, therefore, there was no reason for treating the said amount as an unexplained ‘Cash credit’ in the hands of the assessee u/s 68.
(D). RAMESH L. SHAH (HUF) : RS. 1,00,000/- 1. The assessee during the course of the appellate proceedings furnished with the CIT(A) the following details which were already placed on the record of the A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings:
S.No Documents Submitted by the Assessee (1) Documents filed by the assessee vide letter dated: 17.12.2013: (i). Name, Address and PAN No. of the Party (ii).Acknowledgement of the ‘return of income’ alongwith the Computation of income for A.Y. 2011-12. (iii). Bank passbook showing payment and repayment entries.
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia
2. The assessee further in order to remove any scope of doubt as regards the genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid loan transaction, therein placed on record of the CIT(A) the complete details as regards the repayment of the loan raised from the aforesaid party during the year, alongwith the outstanding balance, as under :
Details of Repayment of Loan Date Amount Cheque No. Bank 19.03.2011 Rs.1,00,000/- 058489 Apna Sahkari Bank 01.10.2010 Rs. 2,00,000/- RTGS State Bank Of Hyderabad 19.10.2010 Rs. 2,50,000/- RTGS State Bank Of Hyderabad
3. That still further the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the complete details as regards the income-tax credentials alongwith the source from where the aforesaid loan was advanced by the abovementioned party, was furnished by the lendor party with the A.O, as under:-
S.No Details (1) Letter filed on 15/01/2014 by the abovementioned party in responsee to summons dated. 23.12.2013, alongwith the following documents:
(i). Name, address and A.O ward where he was being assessed. (ii). Bank pass book for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2012 alongwith the repayment details. (iii). Ledger account for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012.
(2) Letter filed on 25/03/2014 by the abovementioned party explaining the Source of funds, as under:- Particulars Date Amount Extra Trading Co. (Prop. 23.02.2010 Rs. 90,000/-
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia Liadher Majethia) Extra Trading Co. (Prop. 23.02.2010 Rs. 6,255/- Liadher Majethia Cash Deposit 13.04.2010 Rs. 4,000/- Total Rs. 1,00,255/-
The assessee further during the course of the appellate proceedings submitted that as the amount of Rs. 1 lac was advanced by the aforesaid lendor vide payee account Cheque No. 876186 on 16.04.2010, which was repaid to the lendor on 24.03.2011, vide ‘A/s payee’ cheque No. 58489, therefore, the same could not be characterized as a mere book entry. It was thus submitted by the assessee that in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position there was no reason for treating the said amount as an unexplained ‘Cash credit’ in the hands of the assessee u/s 68.
(E). MAHESH S. PRASAD (HUF) : RS. 8,50,000/-
1. The assessee had during the course of the appellate proceedings furnished with the CIT(A) the following details which were already placed on the record of the A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings:
S.No Documents Submitted by the Assessee (1) Documents filed by the assessee vide letter dated: 17.12.2013: (i). Name, Address and PAN No. of the Party (ii). Loan confirmation for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. (iii). Copy of Form 16A.
The assessee further in order to remove any scope of doubt as regards genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid loan transaction,
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia therein placed on record of the CIT(A) the complete details as regards the repayment of the aforesaid loan alongwith the outstanding balance, as under : Details of Repayment of Loan Date Amount Cheque No. Bank 11.03.2011 Rs.1,50,000/- RTGS Apna Sahkari Bank 12.03.2011 Rs. 2,00,000/- RTGS Apna Sahkari Bank 14.03.2011 Rs. 2,00,000/- RTGS Apna Sahkari Bank 15.03.2011 Rs. 2,00,000/- RTGS Apna Sahkari Bank 15.03.2011 Rs. 1,00,000/- RTGS Apna Sahkari Bank
3. That still further the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the complete details as regards the income-tax credentials alongwith the source from where the aforesaid loan was advanced by the abovementioned party, was furnished by the lendor party with the A.O, as under:-
S.No Details (1) Letter filed on 16/01/2014 by the abovementioned party in responsee to summons dated. 23.12.2013, alongwith the following documents:
(i). Name, address and A.O ward where he was being assessed. (ii). Copy of PAN Card. (iii). Acknowledgement of the ‘Return of income’ alongwith the Computation of income for A.Y. 2011-12. (iv). Loan confirmation for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. (v). Bank passbook for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 highlighting the receipt and repayment details.
(2) (i). Letter filed on 25/03/2014 by the abovementioned party explaining the Source of funds, as under:-
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia Particulars Date Amount HB Vora 12.11.2010 Rs.2,00,000/- Dhawal Pasad 22.11.2010 Rs.2,75,000/- HH & Co 04.12.2010 Rs.4,00,000/- Total Rs.8,75,000/-
((ii). Copy of Bank statement for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2012. (iii). Capital a/c and ‘Balance sheet’ for the F.Y. 2010-11.
4. The assessee further during the course of the appellate proceedings submitted before the CIT(A) that now when the Confirmation, return of income and computation of income for A.Y. 2011-12, Bank statement for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2012 highlighting the loan transactions, copies of the ‘Capital account’ and ‘balance sheet’ for F.Y. 2010-11, as well as the source of the funds with the lendor from where the amount was advanced to the assessee was placed on record, therefore, there was no occasion for drawing of any adverse inferences as regards the creditworthiness of the lendor.
(F). BHANUBEN RAJIV MAJETHIA : RS. 4,50,000/-
The assessee had during the course of the appellate proceedings furnished with the CIT(A) the following details which were placed on record of the A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings:
S.No Documents Submitted by the Assessee (1) Documents filed by the assessee vide letter dated: 17.12.2013: (i). Name, Address and PAN No. of the Party (ii). Loan confirmation for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. (iii). Acknowledgement of the ‘Return of income’ alongwith the P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia ‘Computation of income’ for A.Y. 2011-12. (iv). Copy of Bank Passbook. (v). Copy of PAN Card. (vi). Copy of ration card.
2. The assessee further in order to remove any scope of doubt as regards the genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid loan transaction, therein placed on record of the CIT(A) the complete details as regards the repayment of the aforesaid loan alongwith the outstanding balance, as under : Details of Repayment of Loan Date Amount Cheque No. Bank 07.05.2010 Rs.1,50,000/- 058124 Apna Sahkari Bank 08.05.2010 Rs. 2,00,000/- 010803 Apna Sahkari Bank 28.05.2010 Rs. 1,50,000/- 010806 Apna Sahkari Bank 14.12.2010 Rs. 2,50,000/- 014339 Apna Sahkari Bank 13.01.2011 Rs. 1,50,000/- 058325 Apna Sahkari Bank
That still further the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the complete details as regards the income-tax credentials alongwith the source from where the aforesaid loan was advanced by the abovementioned party, was furnished by the lendor party with the A.O, as under:-
S.No Details (1) Letter filed on 12/02/2014 by the abovementioned party in response to summons dated. 23.12.2013, alongwith the following documents:
(i). Name, address and A.O ward where he was being assessed. (ii). Copy of PAN Card. (iii). Acknowledgement of the ‘Return of income’ alongwith the Computation
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia of income for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12. (iv). Loan confirmation for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. (v). Bank passbook for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2011.
(2). Letter filed in response to summon dated. 12/03/2014. (2) (i). Letter filed on 25/03/2014 by the abovementioned party explaining the Source of funds, as under:- Particulars Date Amount Haresh Majethia 01.06.2010 Rs. 1,50,000/- Pratik Thakkar 20.08.2010 Rs. 5,00,000/- Pratik Thakkar 09.09.2010 Rs. 2,00,000/- Haresh Majethia 18.12.2010 Rs. 2,50,000/- Total Rs.11,00,000/-
4. The assessee further during the course of the appellate proceedings submitted before the CIT(A) that the lender had vide her letter dated 07.01.2014 and 18.03.2014 submitted copies of return of income and computation of income for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12. It was submitted by the assessee that the aforesaid lender had in her letter categorically stated that she had not carried out any business activity during the years under consideration, and as such she was under no obligation to maintain ‘books of accounts’. The assessee further submitted that the lender had vide her letter dated 18.03.2014 furnished complete details of the ‘source of funds’ from where the aforesaid amount was advanced to the assessee, as under:-
Date Source of fund Amount Date of Amount as per giving loan bank statement to the assessee of the lender 01.06.2010 Loan received back Rs. 1,50,000/- 02.06.2010 Rs. 1,50,000/-
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia from the assessee. 20.08.2010 Rs. 5,00,000/- 21.08.,2010 Rs. 1,50,000/- Prateek Thakkar 09.09.2010 Rs. 2,00,000/- 06.12.2010 Rs. 2,50,000/- 03.10.2010 Rs. 10,000/- 24.11.2010 Sheetala Fast Food. Rs. 10,000/- 18.12.2010 Loan received back Rs.1,50,000/- 07.01.2011 Rs. 1,50,000/- from the assessee. Total Rs. 7,00,000/- The assessee in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts submitted before the CIT(A) that the A.O without making any further verifications had most arbitrarily drawn adverse inferences as regard the creditworthiness of the aforesaid lender.
The assessee further in the course of the appellate proceedings relied on the order passed by the CIT(A) in the assesses own case for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10, wherein similar additions made by the A.O u/s 68 of the ‘Act’ had been set aside. It was submitted by the assessee that the said respective orders of the CIT(A) were thereafter upheld by the Tribunal.
The CIT(A) after deliberating on the order passed by his predecessor in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10, therein observed that his predecessor taking cognizance of the fact that as the respective amounts had been advanced by the lenders from their bank accounts and have been credited through RTGS/transfer entries, and nothing had been placed on record by the A.O to dislodge the genuineness of the said loan transactions, had thus deleted the additions made by the A.O u/s 68 of the ‘Act’. The CIT(A) taking cognizance of the contentions of the assessee in the backdrop of the facts of the case, therein concluded that it could be P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia safely be held that the assessee had discharged the onus as stood cast upon him, and observed as under:-
“4.2.6. On perusal of the submissions it is seen that the lenders have filed confirmation letters, copies of bank statement and PAN cards, details of income tax returns filed, loan ledger accounts etc. in support of their claims. Details of sources of funds from which the loan is advanced are also mentioned e.g F.D maturity amount in the case of Darshan Singh; funds from H.B Vora; Dhawal Prasad, H.H & Co. in the case of Mahesh Prasad and Co. Thus it cannot be said that the onus cast upon the appellant has remained undischarged. However, the A.O has not brought any fact on record to controvert the assertions of the appellant and the lender. Without any facts to establish that the loans were not genuine, mere surmise cannot be sufficient to bring the amounts within the ambit of Section 68. For instance , the mere fact of deposit of funds in a bank account through RTGS, etc. cannot by itself be enough to hold an amount sourced from those funds as unexplained cash credit to be added in the hands of the appellant. Therefore considering the entire conspectus of facts and the judicial pronouncements cited, the addition u/s 68 is deleted and the ground raised by the appellant is allowed.”
That as regards the disallowance of interest on unsecured loan of Rs. 14,43,598 (relating to A.Y. 2010-11) and Rs. 1,14,650/- (relating to A.Y. 2011-12), therein aggregating to Rs. 15,58,428/- made by the A.O, the same was deleted by the CIT(A). It was observed by the CIT(A) that as the addition of Rs. 1,58,28,921/- made u/s 68 for the preceding year, viz. A.Y. 2010-11 was deleted by his predecessor, while for the addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- made by the A.O
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia u/s 68 for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y. 2011-12 was being deleted by him, therefore, the disallowance of the consequential interest of Rs.14,43,598/-(supra) and Rs. 1,14,650/-(supra) could not be sustained.
The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Departmental representative (for short ‘D.R’) relied on the order of the A.O and took us through Page 1- Para 2 of the order passed by the A.O. It was averred by the ld. D.R that the A.O duly appreciating the facts of the case had rightly assessed the amounts aggregating to Rs. 23 lac received by the assessee from the respective parties, as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Per Contra, the ld. Authorized representative (for short ‘A.R’) for the assessee placed on record a ‘Chart’ wherein the complete details as regards the loan transactions of the assessee with the various lenders stood reflected. The ld. A.R placed heavy reliance on the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that all the loans already stood repaid by the assessee. The ld. A.R further submitted that the ‘Op. balances’ pertaining to the lenders had been accepted by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal of the assessee for the preceding years.
We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We have purposively charted out the complete details which were furnished by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings with the A.O. We have deliberated on the loans raised by the assessee during the year under consideration from the respective parties and find that the assessee had placed on record of the A.O substantial documentary evidence which proved the P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia genuineness and veracity of the loan transactions. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the material made available on record by the assessee to fortify the genuineness of the loan transactions. We find that the assessee had placed on record the copies of the income- tax returns alongwith computation of income, copies of the PAN Numbers, as well the details of the A.O with whom the lenders were being assessed, and thus by so doing had established the complete income tax credentials of the respective lenders. That still further the confirmations of the respective lenders, copies of their bank accounts, source from where the amounts were advanced by them to the assessee were also made available on the record of the A.O. We further find that all of the aforesaid respective loans had been repaid vide account payee cheques by the assessee to the aforesaid lenders. That in certain cases where there was an ‘Opening balance’, viz. Manju M. Jain, Sh. Ramesh L. Shah (HUF) and Smt. Bhanuben Ravji Mehta, the additions made by the A.O as regards the loans received by the assessee from the said persons in the preceding years had been set aside by the CIT(A), and the latters order had been upheld by the Tribunal. We are unable to comprehend that despite the aforesaid substantial material evidencing the genuineness of the respective loan transactions, what had weighed in the mind of the A.O while characterizing the amounts received by the assessee from the said lenders as unexplained cash credits. We find that the source of the loans received by the assessee vide account payee cheques from the respective lenders, safely trails to their respective independent sources, and neither the same were found to have been funded from any cash deposits in the bank accounts of the lenders, nor in any way could be related to the assessee. We find that the complete details as regards the source from where the respective lenders had advanced the loans to the assessee was placed on record of the A.O. We find that P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia the A.O had failed to rebut the genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid loan transactions, as well as failed to place on record any material which could go to disprove the claim of the assessee. We have perused the material made available on record by the assessee, and hold a strong conviction that the assessee had duly discharged the onus as stood cast upon him to prove the genuineness of the aforesaid loan transactions. We find that the CIT(A) had by way of a well reasoned order struck down the addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- made by the A.O u/s 68 in the hands of the assessee. We find no reason to take a different view and thus uphold the order of the CIT(A) in respect of the aforesaid issue under consideration. The Ground of appeal No. 1 to 3 raised by the revenue before us are dismissed.
We now advert to assailing of the deletion by the CIT(A) of the interest on unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 14,43,598 (relating to A.Y. 2010-11) and Rs. 1,14,650/- (relating to A.Y. 2011-12), therein aggregating to Rs. 15,58,428/-. We find ourselves to be in agreement with the CIT(A) that now when the addition of Rs. 1,58,28,921/- made by the A.O u/s 68 in the preceding year, viz. A.Y. 2010-11 was deleted by his predecessor, while for the addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- made by the A.O u/s 68 for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y. 2011-12 was deleted by him, therefore, the disallowance of the consequential interest of Rs.14,43,598/-(supra) and Rs. 1,14,650/- could not be sustained. We find no reason to take a departure from the aforesaid view arrived at by the CIT(A), and thus uphold his order in context of the issue under consideration. The Ground of appeal No. 4 raised by the revenue before us is dismissed.
The Ground of appeal No. 5 raised by the revenue before being general is thus dismissed as not pressed.
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia
The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01/09/2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (G.S.PANNU) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER भ ुंफई Mumbai; ददन ुंक 01.09.2017 Ps. Rohit Kumar आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीर थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आम क्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 3. आमकय आम क्त / CIT 4. विब गीम प्रतततनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भ ुंफई / 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai ग र्ड प ईर / Guard file. 6. सत्म वऩत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीऱीय अधिकरण, भ ुंफई / ITAT, Mumbai
P a g e | ITO Vs. Shri Harish Majethia