SHRI SHRI NITESHKUMAR GOYAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 36/BIL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 March 2022AY 2012-1315 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus to prove the nature and source of the loan transactions. The submission of PAN of one lender and the request to summon the lenders for the first time before the CIT(A) were not considered sufficient.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed to have received unsecured loans of Rs. 20,70,000/- from two individuals. The Assessing Officer treated these loans as unexplained cash credits as the assessee failed to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,70,000/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the loan transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131(1),Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pandse, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Hearing: 15.03.2022Pronounced: 30.03.2022

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals)-II, Raipur, dated 04.01.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 30.03.2015 for assessment year 2012-13. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal :

“1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →