ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI V. VIVEK R. SHETTY, MUMBAI

ITA 6846/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0209 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T A KHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: NIMESH JAMBUSARIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6846/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ASST. CIT 32(3) MUMBAI VS. VIVEK R SHETTY 1/1, SHRINAGAR BLD. G CHANDAVARKAR ROAD, BORIVALI (W) MUMBAI 400 092 PAN AAEPS2750D (APPELLANT) RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T A KHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIMESH JAMBUSARIA DATE OF HEARING : 22 .0 6 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .0 6 . 201 7 O R D E R THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE O RDER DATED 22-09-2016, PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-44, MUMBAI, AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.42.00 LAKHS ADDED U /S 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2. I HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. T HE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED LOANS FROM M/S MOHIT ENTERPRISES AND M/S MAYUR ENTE RPRISES AGGREGATING TO RS.42.00 LAKHS. BOTH THE PARTIES REFERRED ABOVE BE LONG TO BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP WHO HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ENTRY PROVIDER. HENCE, THE AO ASSESSED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.42.00 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE ABOVE SAID LOAN S WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND NOT DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.6846/MUM/2016 VIVEK R SHETTY 2 ACCORDINGLY THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THESE LOANS CAN NOT BE ASSESSED DURING THE INSTANT YEAR, SINCE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY HE DELETED THE ADDITIO N AND THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 4. HAVING HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VI EW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE, SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THESE LOANS WERE NOT TAKEN DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE THE CAUSE OF ACTION, IF ANY, WOULD NOT ARISE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT MAY ARISE IN THE YE AR IN WHICH THE LOANS WERE TAKEN. ACCORDINGLY I UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 2 ND JUNE 2017 SD/- (B R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 22 ND JUNE, 2017. SA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE C I T(A), MUMBAI. 4. THE C I T 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI