M B MALLS P.LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 93/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 June 2023AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the source of Rs. 48,00,000/-. The assessee was directed to submit all evidence without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M B Malls Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the business of building malls, filed its return of income declaring NIL income. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of unsecured loans and advances. The CIT(A) provided substantial relief but sustained an addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit was justified, and whether the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

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

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 06.06.2023Pronounced: 28.06.2023

ORDER

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

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-33, New Delhi dated 30.10.2019.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. That on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of the ld. AO.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholds the addition of Rs.48,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholds addition rejecting the detailed explanation and evidences filed by the assessee to prove the identity M B Malls Pvt. Ltd. and creditworthiness of the shareholders as well as the genuineness of the transaction.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholds the addition of Rs.2,01,853/- after disallowing the adjustment of interest received on FDR and income tax refund with interest expenditure.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passed the order without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant.”

3.

The assessee is engaged in the business of building Mall. The assessee filed return of income on 26.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. NIL. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal in January 2020. Hearings were held on 16.06.2022, 21.09.2022, 26.12.2022, 21.03.2023 and 06.06.2023. The notice has been duly served as per the records and nobody attended any of the hearings.

4.

We have gone through the facts on record, the addition has been made on account of unsecured loans of Rs.72,00,000/- and on account of advances of Rs.60,11,960/-. The ld. CIT(A) has given substantial relief on account of the advances & loans and confirmed advances received from four parties. The assessee at ground no. 2 aggrieved by the sustenance of addition of Rs.48,00,000/-.

5.

Having gone through the entire record, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be well served by remanding the matter to the file of the AO to examine afresh the source of the amount of Rs.48,00,000/-. The assessee shall

M B Malls Pvt. Ltd. submit all the evidences before the Assessing Officer without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/06/2023.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →