Mohit Tyagi, Delhi V. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1878/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7844 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SOMBHADRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K DWEDI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Assessment record
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 18 78/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER & SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1878/DE L/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011- 12) MOHIT TYAGI, PROP. PREM TYAGI TRADING COMPANY & SHANU TRADING COMPANY, 22-23, GALI NO. 2, MANDOLI VILLAGE DELHI. ADJPT6361M VS JCIT RANGE 34 NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY SH. S.K. DWEDI, CA REVENUE BY SH. V.R. SOMBHADRA, SR. DR ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)S-19, NEW DELHI, VIDE ORDER DAT ED 29/12/2014 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW WHILE UPHOLD ING THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF LOANS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE FROM TWO PARTIES OF RS. 2,90,000/- (RS. 2,50,000/- AND RS. 40,000/-) BY IGNORING THE SUBMIS SIONS DATE OF HEARING 06.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/05/2016 2 ITA NO. 18 78/DEL/2015 OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,90,000/- MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. THAT WE CRAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE MODIFY OR WITHD RAW ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS A SERVICE PROVIDER OF MOBILE PHONE ITEMS LIKE RECHARGE COUPONS, SIM CARDS, DATA CARD ETC. THE RE TURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 27.09.2011 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6, 22,152/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 2,50,000/- ON 31.03.2011 FROM MRS. SUMAN TYAGI AND UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 40,000/- ON 30.03.2011 FROM SHRI VICKI GUPTA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT TOTALING OF RS. 2,90, 000/-, AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61, SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF TH ESE TWO LOAN CREDITORS. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE SATIS FACTORILY. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN OF RS. 40,00 0/- WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI VICKY GUPTA AND RS. 2,50, 000/- FROM MRS. SUMAN TYAGI. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK STATE MENTS AND THE ADDRESSES OF BOTH THE LOAN CREDITORS WERE SUBMITTED DURING THE 3 ITA NO. 18 78/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THE CREDIT WORTHIN ESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. 6. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CR EDITWORTHINESS OF BOTH THE LOAN CREDITORS STOOD UNPROVED BY THE AS SESSEE, EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ADMITTED THAT BOTH THE LOAN CREDITOR S WERE NOT TAX PAYERS. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT FILE THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS OR THE BANK STATEMENTS OF TH E LOAN CREDITORS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SO AS TO ENABLE TH E LD. CIT(A) TO VERIFY THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY HIM BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW AND THE ARGUMENTS BY BOTH THE PARTIES. 7.1 IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 40,000/- HAS BEEN GIVEN BY SHRI VICKY G UPTA DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 30/03/2011. IT IS OBSE RVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON 30/11/2010, 01/12/2010, 0 2/12/2010, 18/12/2010 & 29/01/2011, THERE HAS BEEN CASH DEPOSI T INTO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI VICKY GUPTA TOTALING TO RS. 91,000/ -. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT OUTSTANDING BALANCE BEFORE DEPOSIT OF THESE CASH WAS ONLY RS. 4,970/-. 7.2 IN RESPECT OF SMT. SUMAN TYAGI THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER OBSERVED THAT CASH OF RS. 3,00,000/- AND RS. 45,000 /- WERE DEPOSITED ON 11/02/2011 AND 24/02/2011 RESPECTIVELY . AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000/- HAS BEEN ADVANCED AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31/03/2011. THE EXPLANATION FOR DEPOSI T OF SUCH CASH 4 ITA NO. 18 78/DEL/2015 WAS THAT SMT. SUMAN TYAGI WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF CRUSH SINCE 2005 AND THAT SHE HAS BEEN ACCUMULATING THE M ONEY RECEIVED FROM THE CRUSH WHICH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED AS ON 11/02 /2011. 8. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THESE LOAN CREDITORS DO NOT HAVE PAN NUMBERS AND ARE NOT INCOM E TAX ASSESSES. MERELY BECAUSE SMT. SUMAN TYAGI BEING A LADY AND THE INCOME EARNED BY HER BEING IS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT, CANNOT BE VALID REASON FOR NOT HAVING A PAN NUMBER AND ALSO NOT FIL ING INCOME TAX RETURN. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS SATISFACTORILY. 9. CONSIDERING THE DATES ON WHICH THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE LOAN CREDI TORS VIZ-A-VIZ THE DATE OF WHICH THE MONEY HAS BEEN ADVANCED AS LOAN T O THE ASSESSEE IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THESE WERE GENUINE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SMT. SUMAN TYAGI HAD OPENED THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA ON 21/02/2011. CO NSIDERING THE NORMAL TENDENCY THAT A LADY WOULD HAVE, IT IS N OT POSSIBLE THAT SMT. SUMAN TYAGI HAS NOT UTILIZED THE MONEY RECEIVE D FROM CRUSH, SINCE 2005 TO 2011. WE ARE, THEREFORE, NOT INCLINE D TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. WE ARE, THEREFORE, INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5 ITA NO. 18 78/DEL/2015 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.05.2016 SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03.05.2016 *KAVITA ARORA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 27.04.2016 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.04.2016 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 03.05.2016 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 03.05.2016 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 03.05.2016 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 6 ITA NO. 18 78/DEL/2015