Astha Agrawal, Nagpur V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Nagpur

ITA 14/NAG/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Astha Agrawal, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur, which upheld the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 to her income as unexplained cash credits. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the legitimacy of an unsecured loan from M/s. Goodview Engineering Pvt. Ltd., a company previously identified as an entry provider. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides, including the assessee's claim of having satisfied the criteria of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan, and the Revenue's reliance on the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion supporting the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136791 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 241 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1972) 82 ITR 540 (SC), PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.14/NAG/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Astha Agrawal, Flat No.602, Shri Mohini Raj Apartment, Khare Town, Nagpur- 440010. PAN : ADJPA2668Q Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur’s order dated 28.12.2021, passed in case no. CIT(A)-3/10200/2018-19, involving 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 learned lower authorities’ action making section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.20,00,000/- in assessment order dated 21.12.2018 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion as follows :- Assessee by : Shri Rajesh V. Loya Revenue by : Shri G. J. Ninawe Date of hearing : 01.11.2022 Date of pronouncement : 23.12.2022 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 2 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 3 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 4 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 5 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 6 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 7 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 8 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 9 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 10 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 11 ITA No.14/NAG/2022 12 3. Learned counsel vehemently argued in light of the assessee’s good of submissions that she has satisfied all the three para-meters of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned unsecured loans amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- availed from M/s. Goodview Engineering Pvt. Ltd.. He further buttresses the assessee’s stand that she had filed all the documentary evidences of M/s. Goodview Engineering Pvt. Ltd. before the Assessing Officer and discharged her onus to this effect. 4. The Revenue has placed strong reliance on the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion upholding the impugned addition. ITA No.14/NAG/2022 13 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival contentions and find no merit in the assessee’s stand. The assessee had availed unsecured loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from a Calcutta based company M/s. Goodview Engineering Pvt. Ltd. which has already found as an entry provider entity. Learned counsel at this stage sought to highlight the fact that this assessee had never been furnished the corresponding records pertaining to M/s. Goodview Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, the impugned addition has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. All these factual, legal as well as technical arguments raised at the assessee’s behest hardly deserve any acceptance. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decisions from time to time i.e. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 241 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1972) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) have settled the law that any explanation tendered in income tax proceedings has to be appreciated in the light of human probabilities after removing all blinders. Their lordships hold that the assessee could hardly claim to have discharged her onus merely by placing on record documentary evidence. This tribunal is of the view that this assessee has not discharged her onus since she chose to file only documentary evidence of the creditor company M/s. Goodview Engineering Pvt. Ltd. which has already been held as an entry provider entity only. Faced with this situation, ITA No.14/NAG/2022 14 I find no reason to interfere with the learned lower authorities’ action treating the impugned unsecured amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits in assessee’s hands. The same stands upheld. 6. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 23 rd day of December, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 23 rd December, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Nagpur. 4. The CIT (Central), Nagpur. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, नागपुर / DR, ITAT, Nagpur. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.