ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI vs. M.V.REALTORS & AMUSEMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4880/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2023AY 2015-16Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”5 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on an incorrect assumption of facts, as the loan was not received in the current year. The repayment was also made through proper banking channels with sufficient funds.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,71,00,000/- on account of an unsecured loan received by the assessee. However, the loan was actually received in a prior assessment year and was repaid during the year under consideration through banking channels.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unsecured loan was justified when the loan was received in a prior year and repaid in the current year.

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 ‘E’: NEW DELHI

Hearing: 11/10/2023Pronounced: 13/10/2023

ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH AM: This appeal of the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi,

[hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in Appeal No.396, 400 &

405/2016-17 dated 19/05/2017 against the order passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central)-1, New

Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Page 1 of 5 ACIT vs. M.V. Realtors & Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 30/12/2016 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,71,00,000/- made by the AO on account of receipt of unsecured loan/funds from M/s K.D. Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since sufficient opportunities have been granted to the assessee, we deem it fit to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR and based on materials available on record.

4.

The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,71,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO on account of receipt of

5.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that the Ld. AO has observed that assessee had received unsecured loan from M/s K.D. Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.1,71,00,000/- during the year under consideration ACIT vs. M.V. Realtors & Amusement Pvt. Ltd. which was sought to be added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Factually there was no loan received by the assessee from M/s K.D. Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (KDCPL) during the year. In fact this loan of Rs.1,71,00,000/- was received by the assessee from M/s KDCPL during the AY 2013-14 as follows:-

Date Amounts 08/03/2023 - Rs.10,00,000/- 11/03/2023 - Rs.84,00,000/- 14/03/2013 - Rs.77,34,000/- Total Rs.171,34,000/- This loan was actually refunded by the assessee during the year under consideration to M/s KDCPC as under:

Date Amount 14/06/2014 - Rs.1,40,00,000/- 28/06/2014 - Rs.31,33,000/- These loans were repaid by regular banking channels from Kotak Mahindra Bank Account No.0111207657 of the assessee company wherein sufficient sources are available with the assessee company to make repayment of loans thereon. These facts are recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 3.3.2.3 of his order which remain uncontroverted by the Revenue before us. We are unable to understand as to how this kind of appeal was even preferred by the ACIT vs. M.V. Realtors & Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AO and how this kind of appeal has been approved by the ld. PCIT. In our considered opinion, the action of both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. PCIT in the instant case by preferring an appeal in the instant case depicts complete non-application of mind and by incorrect assumption of facts. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th October, 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 →