Shri Dharmendrasinh R.Vaghela, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Baroda

ITA 2443/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8226 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH SINGH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2443/AHD/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) DHARMENDRASINH R. VAGHELA PROP: NARENDRA ROADLINES, 1, GOKULNAGAR, NANDESARI, BARODA-391340 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BARODA - 390007 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAHPV2633D ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAURABH SINGH, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 16/05/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31/ 05/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 24.04.2014 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S .143(3) OF THE ITA NO. 2443/AHD/14 [DHARMENDRASINH R. VAGHELA VS. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 2 - INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; (THE ACT) CONCERNING ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008- 09. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REA DS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-II, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- RECEIVED AS LOAN FROM SHRI BHARATSINH JADEJA, AS UNEXPLAINED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A)-II, BARODA OUGHT TO HAVE ACCE PTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) COULD BE INVOKED ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE PAYMENT L IABLE TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE REMAINED PAYABLE AND NOT IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS WHERE THE AMOUNT HAS ALREADY PAID. (B) THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ABOVE CONTENTION IN RESPECT OF TH E DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,96,899/- INCURR ED AND PAID TO NBFC AS INTEREST. 3. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PR ESSED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING AND THEREFORE DISMISSED. 4. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESS EES APPEAL CONCERNING ADDITION OF RS.1LAKH RECEIVED AS LOAN FR OM SHRI BHARATSINH JADEJA. 5. IN THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO INTER ALIA NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.1LAKH FROM ONE BHARATSING LALUBHA JADEJA. THE AO OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TOWARDS IDENTITY, GE NUINENESS AND ITA NO. 2443/AHD/14 [DHARMENDRASINH R. VAGHELA VS. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 3 - CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED LENDER DESPITE SEVE RAL OPPORTUNITIES. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE THE P AN NUMBER AT THE TIME OF THE MONEY LENT. THE RETURN PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS ALSO NOT FILED. THE AO ACCORDINGLY RES ORTED TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE AFORESAID CREDIT APPEAR ING IN THE BOOKS AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED AS UNSECURED LOAN. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A). 7. THE CIT(A) ALSO WAS NOT PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE LOAN AS BONAFIDE. IT WAS FOUND BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS INITIAL ONUS ON THE BONAFIDES OF THE LOAN AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER. THE CIT(A) THEREFO RE REFUSED TO GRANT ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS ON THE ISSUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MAINTAINABILITY OF ADDITION OF RS.1LAKH UNDER S.68 PURPORTEDLY RECEIVED AS LOAN IS IN CONTROVERSY. A PERUSAL OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO SUPPORT THE BONAFIDES OF THE LOANS RECEIVED FROM ONE SHRI BHARA TSINH L. JADEJA. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER SUBMITTED THE RETURN OF IN COME NOR HAS PROVIDED THE BANK STATEMENT OF LENDER TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL ONUS. AS NARRATED IN APPELLATE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO SUPPORT THE ITA NO. 2443/AHD/14 [DHARMENDRASINH R. VAGHELA VS. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 4 - GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER BEFO RE CIT(A) ALSO. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO ESTABLISH, AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE , AS TO HOW THE LOAN SO OBTAINED IS BONAFIDE. THERE ARE NO PARTICULARS TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF LOAN ON REC ORD EITHER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 31/05/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/05/201 8