Asha Gupta, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-60(1), New Delhi

ITA 6034/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9290 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 131; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6034/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Asha Gupta, 423, Kanungo Apartments, Plot No. 71, IP Ext., Patpar Ganj, Delhi. PAN:AETPG8803J Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Gurgaon. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Zahid Parvez, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08.06.2022 Date of order : 08.06.2022 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order dated 17.07.2018, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts as culled out from record, relevant for adjudication of this appeal, are that the Assesseehad filed its return of income [2] declaring income of Rs.1,29,06,830/- on dated 30.11.2014, which was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices were issued to the Assessee. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the year, in the capital account of the Assessee , total addition was of Rs.1,64,21,500/-. The Assessee was required to furnish the details of this capital addition, in response to which the Assessee gave break up of such addition in the capital account, which, inter alia, included an unsecured loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from M/s. SVJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. The break-up of capital addition given by the Assessee is mentioned in para 4 of the assessment order. On being asked, the Assessee filed confirmation, bank statements and balance sheet of the said creditor M/s. SVJ Developers Pvt. Ltd.. The Assessing Officer noticed that the said lenderhas filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 at an income of Rs.85,646/- having total of fixed assets of only Rs.8950/- as furniture. The balance sheet of the lender company is mentioned at page 2 of the Assessment order. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the financial statements of the lender company, therefore, observed that this company does not have any creditworthiness to give such a huge loan to the Assessee. The Assessing Officer also issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, in response to which M/s. SVJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. confirmed that they have given loan of Rs.40,00,000/- to the Assessee at zero interest and that they are in the business of real estate. The Assessing Officer has also doubted the transaction keeping in view the narration of bank entries in the bank statement. The Assessing Officer further observed that M/s. SVJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. had transactions with the Assessee all year along, but on the relevant dates there were no transactions with the Assessee. The Assessing Officer also observed that when summons u/s. 131 of the Act was [3] issued to the lender company, the same returned back with the remark ‘ no such person in such address’, whereas the notice u/s. 133(6) stood served on the same address and responded by the lender company. The Assessee was also asked to produce the director of the said company for examination on 07.12.2016, when the Director Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg of M/s. SVJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. gave his statement that they have received loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from M/s. M.A. Enterprises, but by mistake they credited this amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the account of the Assessee. He further stated that their company deals in real estate construction business but no construction activity has been started yet, however, he did not speak anything about the source of their income. On this the Assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that, in fact, this amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was not a loan but by mistake this amount has been credited to the Assessee’s account instead of the account of M/s. M.A. Enterprises by M/s. S.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of Assessee observing that the amounts were received with interval of times and as per explanation of Assesseeitself the cheques received were en- cashed prematurely by the Assessee. The Assessee had kept the amount for about six months and if it was a mistake, then the Assessee had ample time to return the same to the lender, which has not been done. On the backdrop of all these facts, the Assessing Officer added this amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the income of the Assessee. 2.1 The Assessee challenged the assessment in appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 17.07.2018 [4] dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on the premise that the Assessing Officer examined the final accounts of the lending entity M/s. SVJ and upon examination of the same, concluded that the lender did not have capacity or financial means to advance such sums. The accounts shows that the sums so advanced to the Assessee were also obtained from another entity which as per the ld. AR happens to be another concern in which the husband of the Assessee was holder. 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order of ld. CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. None is present on behalf of the Assessee despite the notice for hearing was sent at the address given in form-36 filed by the Assessee. There is no information regarding change in Assessee’s address. Therefore, constrained to decide this appeal as ex-parte after hearing the ld. DRand on the basis of record available before us. 5. The ld. DR submitted that since the Assesseehas failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lender company before the authorities below and the Hon’ble Tribunal as well,therefore impugned order does not require any interference. 6. Having heard the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record including the order of the ld. Commissioner, we observe that there is nothing on record before us to substantiate the grounds raised by the Assessee in the memorandum of this appeal. Further, no material and/or evidence is available with us to prove [5] the creditworthiness of the lender company and the alleged mistake committed by the lender company in crediting the impugned amount in the account of Assessee instead of some other party. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. Authorities below. Accordingly, the order of the ld. Commissioner deserves to be sustained as the same does not suffer from any perversity, impropriety and/or illegality. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/06/2022 Sd/- Sd/- ( ANIL CHATURVEDI) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *aks/-