BLUE DIAMOND CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-29(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 167/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Blue Diamond Constructions, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 81,15,955 treated as unexplained deposits, attributed to unsecured loans. The assessee argued that they had provided sufficient documentation to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transactions, which was allegedly overlooked by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Department defended the addition, citing lack of evidence to substantiate the claims of the assessee. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the documents were not adequately considered and thus remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126980 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

आयकर य कर म ु ंबई ठ “ब ”, म ु ंबई ठ क , य यक य ए ं गगन गोय , ेख क र य के म$ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ ं.167/म ु ं/ 2023 ( न. .2013-14) ITA NO. 167/MUM/2023(A.Y. 2013-14) Blue Diamond Constructions, B-101, Shrirang Niwas, Gokhale Road, Mulund(East) Mumbai 400 081 PAN: AAJFB-6858-N ...... * /Appellant बन म Vs. ITO,Ward 19(1)(4), Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... + , /Respondent * - र / Appellant by : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi, Advocate + , - र /Respondent by : Ms.Ketaki Desai, Sr.AR ु न ई क. , / Date of hearing : 28/06/2023 /ो0 क. , / Date of pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28/12/2022, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Dharan V. Gandhi appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the solitary issue raised in the appeal is against confirming addition of 2 ITA NO. 167/MUM/2023(A.Y. 2013-14) Rs.81,15,955/- by treating unsecured loans as unexplained deposits. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee had taken unsecured loans from 10 parties aggregating to Rs.77,25,000/-. The ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to the table in the statement of facts furnished by the CIT(A). He pointed that in so far as loan from Amol Vaze Rs.1,00,000/-, it was taken in the preceding Assessment Year and it was the opening balance which is reflected in the impugned assessment year. In the case Waman Karve loan taken during the year was only Rs.1,00,000/-. In the preceding Assessment Year the assessee had taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the said party and the same was reflected as opening balance for current Assessment Year. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that with regard to unsecured loans taken during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee had furnished confirmations, Income tax declaration along with bank statements and in respect of some of the lenders copy of declaration of source of income for advancing loans was also filed. It was only in respect of 2-3 parties that the assessee could not furnish requisite details as the lenders were not co-operating with the assessee. The Assessing Officer without taking note of the documents furnished by the assessee has erred in observing in the assessment order that the assessee had only filed confirmations and no other supporting document was filed. Similar set of documents as were filed before the Assessing Officer were filed before the CIT(A) vide submissions dated 06/01/2021. All the documents were furnished to the CIT(A) through ITBA portal. The CIT(A) without referring to the documents filed by the assessee in support of his submissions has dismissed the appeal of assessee. 3 ITA NO. 167/MUM/2023(A.Y. 2013-14) 3. Per contra, Ms.Ketaki Desai representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that in the absence of supporting evidence to prove identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition on account of unexplained deposits. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee purportedly received unsecured loans from the following parties: Sr.No. Name of the Parties Amount ( in Rs.) 1. Amol Vaze 1,00,000 2. Anjali Shete 8,00,000 3. D.H.Trading 25,00,000 4. Meghna Kavatkar 5,00,000 5. Minal Arekar 2,00,000 6. Vaishali Chitale 12,65,955 7. Omkar Bhide 10,00,000 8. Sharddha Joshi 2,00,000 9. Surendra Korhale 3,00,000 10. Tanna Prakash 10,00,000 11. Waman Karve 2,50,000 Total 81,15,955 The ld.Counsel for the assessee has pointed that in so far as unsecured loan from Amol Vaze the same was received in the preceding Assessment Year and from the total amount of unsecured loan of Waman Karve Rs.1,50,000/- was received in the preceding Assessment Year and fresh loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was received during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. Thus, the unsecured loans taken during the year were Rs.77,25,000/- (Rs. 81,15,955 - Rs. 2,50,000). The short contention of the assessee is that the documents furnished before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) to prove genuineness and 4 ITA NO. 167/MUM/2023(A.Y. 2013-14) creditworthiness of the parties were neither considered by the Assessing Officer nor by the CIT(A). From the documents available on record it appears that the assessee had furnished documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer on various dates starting from 23/11/2015 to 03/03/2016. The same set of supporting documents along with submissions dated 06/01/2021 were purportedly filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). Taking into consideration entire set of facts, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for considering the documents furnished by the assessee and to pass the assessment order denovo. The Assessing Officer is further directed to consider assessee’s submission with regard to opening balances of the loans from two parties. In n case the Assessing Officer finds that the loan from Amol Vaze Rs. 1,00,000/- and Waman Karve Rs.1,50,000/- were received by the assessee in the preceding Assessment Years, no addition is warranted qua opening balances of such loans in the impugned assessment year. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee to make submissions before deciding this issue afresh, in accordance with law. 5. In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 28 th day of June, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ेख क र य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER य यक य/JUDICIAL MEMBER म ु ंबई/ Mumbai, 1 न ंक/Dated 28/06/2023 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) 5 ITA NO. 167/MUM/2023(A.Y. 2013-14) े Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. */The Appellant , 2. + , / The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4.. 2 ग य + , न , आय. . ., म ु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग 45 6 7 /Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai