SURESH RIZUMAL BHOJWANI,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 288/NAG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 May 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, noting that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity before the CIT(A) and possessed supporting documents. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 2.30 crore to the assessee's income as unexplained credits on account of unsecured loans, as the assessee failed to produce necessary documents. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity for the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained credits on account of unsecured loans was justified without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Date of Hearing – 13/05/2024 Date of Order – 13/05/2024

O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 27/07/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:–

“That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Order passed by Honble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, NFAC is bad in law and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Suresh Rizumal Bhojwani ITA no.288/Nag./2023

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing ex- parte order without affording enough opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in relying solely on the findings of Assessing Officer for adjudicating the case of the assessee. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (A) ought to have allowed the claim of the assessee to delete additions amounting to Rs. 2,30,00,000/- treated as unexplained credits on account of Loans received during the year. 5. Any other grounds that may be taken at the time of hearing of the case.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed its return of income 14/12/2016, for the year under consideration declaring total income of ` 8,57,410. The said return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served on the assessee. The assessee during the year under consideration had shown unsecured loans amounting to ` 2,63,82,617, in its balance sheet as on 31st March 2016. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings enquired about genuineness of the said unsecured loans. Since the assessee was unable to produce the details and documents called for loans taken from M/s M/s.Risewell Sales Pvt Ltd, M/s Marina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Shivbhumi Tradecomm Pvt. Itd totalling to ` 2,30,00,000, the said amount was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained credits Under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at ` 2,38,57,410, vide order dated 22/12/2018.

Suresh Rizumal Bhojwani ITA no.288/Nag./2023 Aggrieved, the matter was carried in appeal before the learned CIT(A), but no succour was intended to the assessee in the absence of any meaningful participation by the assessee.

4.

Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee humbly pleaded that he is in possession of all the documents and evidences to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender as required under section 68 of the Act. He requested that given one more opportunity he will be in a position to submit all the documents / evidences which are in his possession for appropriate verification and examination.

5.

We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below It is true that the assessee has miserably failed before the Assessing Officer to establish his case. However, before the learned CIT(A), he was not afforded adequate opportunity to establish his case. Moreover, it is apparent from the assessment order that a portion of loan was also re-paid during the same financial year. In view of the above, we deem it expedient to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to carry out denovo adjudication on the same issue. The learned Departmental Representative did not have any serious objection on this proposition. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and not seek unnecessary adjournment. Thus, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Suresh Rizumal Bhojwani ITA no.288/Nag./2023

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/05/2024

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →