ITO, New Delhi V. M/s T.S. Kisan & Co. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4938/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3820 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRUJANI MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN; VED JAIN CA SMT RANO JAIN
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4938/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4938/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2005-06 ITO, WARD 16(1), ROOM NO. 224, CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI VS. M/S T.S. KISAN & CO. LTD., C-420, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI (PAN : AAACT 6028N) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN, CA, SMT. RANO JAIN AND V. MOHAN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MS. SR U JANI MOHANTY, D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM SHAMIM YAHYA: AM SHAMIM YAHYA: AM SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 1.9.20 10 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 28,00 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED RECEIPTS OF UNSECURED LOANS. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. DURING THE C OURSE OF VERIFICATION OF SUCH UNSECURED LOANS, SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE IT A CT WERE SENT, BUT RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DE PUTED INSPECTOR FROM HIS OFFICE IN THIS REGARD, AS THERE WAS CONFUSI ON REGARDING THE ITA NO. 4938/DEL/2010 2 CORRECT ADDRESS AND THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT THE FIRM DID NOT EXIST AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSE SSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS IN THIS REG ARD. ASSESSEE PROVIDED AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH IT STATED THE PAR TICULARS OF LOANS OBTAINED BY CHEQUE AND ALSO RETURNED BY CHEQUE. HO WEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED. HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON IT TO IDENTIFY THE PERSONS AND P ROVE THE GENUINENESS OF HAVING ADVANCED LOANS TO THE COMPANIE S. HENCE, HE PROCEEDED TO ADD A SUM OF ` 28 LACS AS UNDISCLOSED I NCOME U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISBELI EVED THE CREDITS ON THE GROUND THAT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT PROVED. HE NOTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUES AN D AMOUNTS WERE REPAID IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE NEC ESSARY EVIDENCES WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT AND BANK STATEMENT. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED T HE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF IT O VS. SHYAM SUNDER JAJODIA (2008) 26 SOT 541 (DELHI), THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN CONFIRMS THE EARLIER ACCEPTANCE OF LOAN. CONSIDERING THE SAME, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 4938/DEL/2010 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THA T ASSESSEE HAS DULY SUBMITTED THAT THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AN D WERE PAID IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND NECESSARY EVIDENC E IN THIS REGARD HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE SHAPE OF THE AFFIDAVI T, BANK STATEMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)S ACTION IN DELETING THE ADDITION IS JUST IFIED. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SA ME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/6/2011 UPO N CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- [A.D. JAIN] [A.D. JAIN] [A.D. JAIN] [A.D. JAIN] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 14/6/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES