Shri Naresh Kumar Goyal , Tinsukia V. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Tinsukia

ITA 72/GTY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1173 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMITAVA SEN J
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH E COURT AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7 2 / GAU / 2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 SRI NARESH KUMAR GOYAL C/O M/S B.T. TEXTILES, J.P. MARKET, A.T. ROAD, TINSUKIA-786125 [ PAN NO.AHFPG 8169 E ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, TINSUKIA /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SANJAY MODI, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI AMITAVA SEN, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 11-12-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18-12-2019 / O R D E R PER BEMCH:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-DIBRUGARHS OR DER DATED 17.01.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. CIT(A), DIBRUGARH/10110/2016-17 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT T HE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CANVAS SED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL SEEKS TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION TREATING ALLEGED LOAN OF 9,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM NARESH GOYAL (HUF) AMOUNTI NG TO 9,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT UPHELD IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDING S AS UNDER:- ITA NO.72/GAU/2018 ASSESSME NT YEAR: 2014-15 SRI NARESH KR. GOYAL. VS. ITO, WARD-2-TINSUK IA PAGE 2 5. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 6 : THESE GROUNDS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.9 ,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 5.1 DURING RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, ASSESSEE WAS KA RTA OF HUF NAMED, NARESH GOYAL (HUF). IN THE BALANCE SHEET, ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN TO HAVE TAKEN LOAN OF RS.9,00,000/- FROM THE HUF. ON THE DAYS IN WHICH TH E LOAN WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE HUF, THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS O F RS.5,00,000/- AND RS.4,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE HUF. WHEN THE AO INQUIRED ABOUT CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE HUF, HE FOUND OUT THAT THE SAID H UF WAS STATED TO START BUSINESS FROM FY 2012-13 ONLY. TAX RETURN DECLARED BY THE HU F FOR AY 2013-14 WAS ONLY RS.1,95,210/-. ON FURTHER INQUIRY, THE AO FOUND OUT THAT THE HUF WAS NOT HAVING ANY TRADE LICENSE AND VAT REGISTRATION. IT ALSO HAD NO EMPLOYEES IN ITS ROLE AND NO DETAILS OF SALES FOR FYRS. 2012-13 AND 2013-14 COULD BE PRO DUCED. THE LOAN OF RS.9,00,000/- WAS STATED TO HAVE COME FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF THE H UF, BUT NO EVIDENCES REGARDING ANY SALES COULD BE PRODUCED. NO EVIDENCE OF RENT PA YMENT FROM ANY SPACE OCCUPIED FOR PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS COULD BE P RODUCED. SINCE THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE WAS STATED TO HAVE STARTED ONLY FROM FY 20 12-13 AND AS THE INCOME FOR THAT YEAR WAS ONLY RS.1,95,000/-, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT CREDITWORTHINESS WAS NOT PROVED. ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE HOW RS.960,910 /- WAS AVAILABLE AS CAPITAL AS ON 01.04.2013. THE AO THEREFORE ADDED RS.9,00,000/- TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 5.2 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE HUF WAS NOT PROVED. IT IS ASSESSEES DUTY TO PR OVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF PERSON FROM WHOM LOAN WAS ALLEGEDLY TAKEN. THE VERY FACT T HAT DEPOSITS OF CASH TOOK PLACE ON THE SAME DAYS IN WHICH LOANS WERE ALLEGEDLY TAKE N GIVE CREDENCE TO THE BELIEF THAT THE LOANS WERE NOT GENUINE. ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE HUF HA PROFITABLE CONCERN FROM, WHICH LOAN OF RS,9,00,0 00/- COULD HAVE BEEN ADVANCED. NO PROOF REGARDING PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS BY HU F WAS AVAILABLE. IN VIEW OF COGENT FACTS MARSHALED BY THE AO AGAINST CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE, THREE IS SUFFICIENT REASON TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS TAKEN ARE DISMISSED . 3. LEARNED COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY SUBMITS DURING THE CO URSE OF HEARING THAT THE IMPUGNED LOAN(S) HAVE COME FROM ASSESSEES EPON YMOUS HUF ONLY WHOSE CORRESPONDING DETAILS ALREADY FORM PART OF CA SE RECORD, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED THEREFORE. THE REV ENUES CASE ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT ASSESSEES HUF HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVING MEAGRE INCOME AND THE CREDITS IN ITS BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE SE EN CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWAL IN A VERY SHORT SPAN OF TIME AS WELL. IT THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES PROVE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES GOING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD FOREGOING RIVAL ARGUMENTS. CASE FI LE PERUSED. WE FIND THAT NEITHER PARTY(IES) SUBMISSIONS DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED IN ENTIRETY. THE ITA NO.72/GAU/2018 ASSESSME NT YEAR: 2014-15 SRI NARESH KR. GOYAL. VS. ITO, WARD-2-TINSUK IA PAGE 3 FACT REMAINS THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS REGARDING GENUI NENESS / CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE HUF HAVING MEAGRE SOURCE OF INCOME DESPITE F OLLOWED BY WITHDRAWALS IN SHORT SPAN OF TIME. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FAILED TO DISPUTE THAT THE ABOVE FOREGOING SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE PRIMA FACIE PROVES THAT THE LOANS HAVE COME FROM ASSESSEES HUF ONLY. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS THAT A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF 4,50,000/- INSTEAD OF ENTIRE SUM OF 9,00,000/- ONLY DESERVES TO BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. W E MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR INSTANT ESTIMATION IS BASED ON PECULIAR FACTS AND I T SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF. CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT SHALL FOLLOW AS PER LAW. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOV E TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 18/ 12/2019 SD/- SD/- (A.L.SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP - 18 / 12 /201 9 / / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SRI NARESH KR. GOYA, C/O M/S B.T. TEXTIL ES, J.P. MARKET, A.T. ROAD, TINSUKIA-78612 5, ASSAM 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WARD-2-TINSUKIA-786125 3. * - / CONCERNED CIT GUWAHATI 4. -- / CIT (A) GUWAHATI 5. 0 33*, *, / DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI 6. 7 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO *,