ITO, New Delhi V. Smt. Manju Aggarwal, New Delhi

ITA 5672/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65767 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SEHGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KAUSHAL KISHORE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5672/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5672/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2003-04 ITO, WARD - 23(3), ROOM NO. 187, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI 110 002 VS. MS. MANJU AGGARWAL, A-03, JAWAHAR PARK, DEVLI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 062 (PAN/GIR NO. : AEQPA 3696E) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. KAUSHAL KISHORE, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. DEEPAK SEHGAL, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXV, NEW DE LHI DATED 22.2.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 13,32,650/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 68 OUT OF UNSECURED LOANS. 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED THE CASH LOANS OF ` 13,32,650/- FROM THE FOLLOWING SEVEN DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS:- I) MRS. SARITA GARG ` 79,400/- II) MR. BUDH SINGH ` 2,65,800/- ITA NO. 5672/DEL/2011 2 III) MR. CHHOTE LAL ` 3,69,500/- IV) MR. JAGDISH PRASAD ` 96,450/- V) MRS. KAMLA DEVI ` 94,500/- VI) MR. RAJ KUMAR GARG ` 77,000/- VII) MR. B.L. AGGARWAL ` 3,50,000/- 3.1 ASSESSEE WAS ASKED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATIONS OF UNSECURED LOANS WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SOURCE. ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE CONFIRMATIONS. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED. HE OBSERVED THAT CONFI RMATION WAS ON PLAIN PAPER AND NOT IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS. HE OBSERV ED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS IS NOT ESTABLISHED. ASSESSING O FFICER PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT CASH CREDIT OF ` 13,32,650/- WERE NOT GEN UINE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND THE SAME WERE ALSO REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING TH E ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OBSER VED THAT SH. BABU LAL AGGARWAL IS THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSE E AND ALL OTHER LOAN CREDITORS ARE THE RELATIVES OF SH. BABUL LAL AGGARWAL. HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO TAKE SMALL LOANS WHILE IN ITIATING THE BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BUSINESS AND SO THE LOANS AS SUCH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE BOGUS AS THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALL THE DETAILS WERE SUB MITTED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ALSO. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (A) CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN SMALL LOANS FROM SMA LL PERSONS WHO WERE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 5672/DEL/2011 3 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS PROVIDED THE NECESSARY DETAILS. THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSIONS WERE DULY MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE AFFIDAVITS IN THIS REGARD WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) WHICH WERE REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR TREA TING THIS AMOUNT RECEIVED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/11/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV] ]] ] [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 09/11/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR 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