MR. MARIANO LUCAS FERNANDES,GOA VELHA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 75/PAN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 January 2023AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs as unexplained unsecured loans. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of these loans.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2009-10, challenging the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs in unsecured loans as unexplained. The assessee failed to provide relevant details during the assessment and subsequent proceedings before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the unsecured loans of Rs. 12 lakhs were genuine and the assessee discharged the onus of proof regarding their creditworthiness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI ‘SMC’ BENCH : PANAJI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 16.01.2023Pronounced: 24.01.2023

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009- 10, arises against the CIT(A)-2 Panaji, Panaji, Goa’s order dated 26.02.2020, passed in case ITA.No.458/CIT(A)- 2/PNJ/2017-18, ITA.No.575/PNJ/2011-12, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating his unsecured loans of Rs.12 lakhs as unexplained in the course of assessment dated 29.12.2011 as upheld in CIT(A)'s order as under :

2 ITA.No.75/PAN./2020

3 ITA.No.75/PAN./2020

3.

Suffice to say, it emerges during the course of hearing that assessee had not filed any of the relevant details during the course of assessment as per the observations to this effect in the assessment order. He chose to file his additional submissions before the CIT(A), which were referred to the Assessing Officer. The latter’s remand report dated 14.02.2020 [pages 28 to 29] makes it clear that the assessee’s

1.

4 ITA.No.75/PAN./2020 very failure continued even in the said second round as well. Learned counsel invited my attention to the assessee’s detailed paper book running into 53 pages that the assessee had duly filed all the relevant details which can be now subjected to afresh factual verification.

4.

All these assessee’s averments fail to evoke this tribunal’s concurrence once it has come on record that he could not discharge his onus of proving genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans of Rs.12 lakhs. I thus upheld the impugned addition in light of the CIT(A)'s foregoing detailed discussion. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.01.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →