SRS HEALTHCARE & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- II(4), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4936/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 November 2023AY 2015-16Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)3 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 held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 as the transaction was confirmed by the partners of the depositing firm and the payment was reflected in their bank statements. Therefore, the addition was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a credit of Rs. 1 crore in the assessee's books, claimed by the assessee as a security deposit for operating a pharmacy. The AO made an addition of this amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the credit of Rs. 1 crore received as a security deposit was unexplained in the hands of the assessee, despite confirmation from the depositor and bank statements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
Hearing: 09/11/2023Pronounced: 17/11/2023

BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 SRS Healthcare &Research ITO Centre Ltd. C/o. SRS Mall, Ward- II(4) Third Floor, Sector-12, Vs. Faridabad Faridabad PAN No.AATCS0535L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advcoate Respondent by Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR Date of hearing: 09/11/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 17/11/2023 ORDER

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Faridabad dated 26.02.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2015- 16.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1 crore made by the AO. 3. Having heard the rival contents, we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below.

4.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed a credit of Rs.1 crore in the name of M/s. Just Relief Healthcare Pharmacy.

5.

The assessee claimed to have received this amount as a security deposit from the said party for operating a pharmacy shop in the hospital run by the assessee. 6. To verify this transaction the AO issued notices to the two partners of M/s. Just Relief Pharmacy namely Amit Tayal and Ashok Aggarwal asking them to confirm the transaction and furnish bank statements. The notices are placed at pages 162 and 163 of the paper book. Both the partners confirmed the transaction and submitted the bank statement of M/s. Just Relief Healthcare Pharmacy. The confirmation and the bank statement are at pages 169 and 170 of the paper book. 7. It would be pertinent to mention here that the AO made enquiry directly from the partners of M/s. Just Relief Healthcare Pharmacy and the assessee was nowhere in the enquiry conducted by the AO. The transaction was confirmed the payment is duly reflected in the bank statement. We do not find any logic in treating the sum deposited by M/s. Just Relief Healthcare Pharmacy as unexplained in the hands of the assessee. The assessee has successfully discharge the onus cast upon it by the provision of section 68 of the Act, therefore, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1 crore. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.11.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →