Shri B. Kunhi Ahamed., Mangalore V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mangalore., Mangalore

ITSSA 39/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4918 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. (SS) A. No. 39/PAN/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. B. Kunhi Ahmed, Hasnain Nadir, Opp: Fr. Muller’s Hostel, Derlakatte, Mangalore 575 018 [PAN: ABLPA 9471B] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Manglore-575 001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 28.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 29.03.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Panaji-2 [in brevity the CIT(A)], bearing Appeal No. 284/CIT(A)-VI/BNG/2014-15 and ITA No. 344/CIT(A)/PNJ- 2/2014-15 dated 25.08.2015 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act), in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal: IT(SS)A No. 39/PAN/2015 B. Kunhi Ahmed v. Dy.CIT 2 “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the loan amount from Smt. Rizwana without giving proper weight to the confirmation letter filed by the Authorized Representative at the time of hearing of the appeal. Thus the order passed is against the facts of the case and liable to be set aside. 2. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have sent the confirmation letter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the authenticity of the creditor as required under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Thus there was a lapse on the part of the Learned CIT(A) and the order is liable to be set aside. 3. For these and other grounds to be advanced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays for setting aside the order.” 3. Brief fact is that only the point was challenged by the assessee related to receiving of loan from his cousin Smt. Rizwana who is staying in Dubai (UAE) through banking channel amount of Rs. 2 lac. The Ld. AO rejected the loan on the reason that the loan confirmation was not filed by the assesse during the hearing. During the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) without proper verification of the fact rejected the issue on the same ground, for non-receiving of the loan confirmation from the loan creditor related to amount of Rs. 2 lac. 4. After receiving the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assesse filed an appeal before the ITAT. 5. The assessee in the grounds of appeal prayed for further verification and requested to send back the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). As per the assessee, the IT(SS)A No. 39/PAN/2015 B. Kunhi Ahmed v. Dy.CIT 3 verification of Ld. AO was in complete, the loan creditor is genuine, transaction through banking channel and the loan creditor is the relative of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not take any cognizance of the assessee’s submission, made during the year. Only on the ground was that no loan confirmation was received from assessee. Accordingly, the addition is sustained. 6. We heard the matter. An amount of Rs. 2 lac was received from the relative of the assessee through banking channel. Only non receiving of the loan confirmation should not be the issue for disallowing the loan of the assessee. The assessee also received loan from other parties, and the loan creditors filed confirmation letters. Accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) allowed all the creditors. In this loan creditor, a further verification is required by the Ld. CIT(A) for amount of Rs.2 lac which was received from Mrs. Rizwana. The Ld. DR accepted the fact for further verification. Accordingly the matter is setting aside before the Ld. CIT(A) for further verification of the loan creditor an amount of Rs. 2 lac. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.03.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 29.03.2022 *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned IT(SS)A No. 39/PAN/2015 B. Kunhi Ahmed v. Dy.CIT 4 (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal