RESONANCE HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-21(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 493/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 July 2023AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon them under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The repeated failure to appear before the authorities indicated a lack of evidence to support the claim of unsecured loans.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 31,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The assessee failed to appear before the AO, CIT(A), and the ITAT to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 31,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was justified, and whether the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 31.07.2023Pronounced: 31.07.2023

ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi dated 24.01.2019.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. That the Ld. CIT-A as well as AO erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition for the sum of Rs. 31,40,000/- under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit without appreciating the facts of the case, such addition is requested to be deleted. 2. That the Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act without considering the evidences and documents, such addition is requested to be deleted.

Resonance Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd.

3. That the Ld. CIT-A erred in law and on facts not considering the confirmation letter as submitted before the AO of lender along with their PAN to establish identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the of the lender; such addition is needs to be deleted.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT-A erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C.

5.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) is bad in law keeping in view the grounds mentioned above.”

3.

The assessee filed appeal on 22.03.2022. Proceedings were conducted on 04.05.2022, 30.08.2022, 20.10.2022, 30.11.2022, 06.02.2023, 13.03.2023, 17.04.2023, 09.05.2023, 01.06.2023, 28.06.2023 and 31.07.2023. Nobody on behalf of the assessee attended the proceedings. Hence, it is decided to pass the order based on the record available before us.

4.

From the record placed before us, we find that the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been made by the AO on account of unsecured loans received by the assessee owing to the failure of the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties. Before the ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee has failed to attend the hearing on 7 different occasions. Even before us, the assessee has failed to appear on 11 different dates which only goes to establish that the assessee has nothing in his possession to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties and to discharge the onus casted upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Resonance Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31/07/2023.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →