RPS INFOLINK PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD, 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3784/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves RPS Infolink Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,25,000 as unexplained cash credit for the assessment year 2014-15. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to discrepancies in the reported loan amounts from a director. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, finding insufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the opening balance of the loan. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided adequate evidence through the director's ledger account, showing all transactions were conducted via bank, and thus allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472729 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASIF KAR MALI; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: PARAS MUNOT; AR VIRTUALLY APPEARED
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 148; 68

Judgement Text

" | आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण \fा यपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3784/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 RPS Infolink Private Limited AL-4/16/7, Triveni Apartment Sec-5, Airoli Navi Mumbai Maharashtra – 400708 [PAN: AAGCR2641R] Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(3)(1), Mumbai अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Paras Munot, A/R (Virtually appeared) Revenue by : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A) – 8, Delhi, dated 27/06/2024 [hereinafter ‘ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2014-15. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of unexplained cash credit. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of the information that the assessee has not filed its return of income for the year under consideration and has received professional receipts of Rs.75,000/- , notices were issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act pursuant to which it filed its return of income. 3.1. While scrutinising the return of income, the AO notice that the assessee has shown loan from its director of Rs.1,25,000/- but in the I.T.A. No. 3784/Mum/2024 2 balance sheet the loan has been shown at Rs.10,000/- only. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of the loan and on receiving no plausible reply, the AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions and made addition of Rs.1,25,000/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and strongly contended that the AO has made the addition without considering the fact that the loan was taken from one of the directors from which there was an opening balance of Rs.72,000/- and additional loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- was taken during the year and the substantial part was repaid during the year under consideration and the closing balance was only Rs.10,000/-. 4.1. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the ld. CIT(A) who was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to substantiate through any documentary evidence, the opening balance of Rs.72,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) was further of the opinion that bank statement does not prove that the said transactions are in the nature of loan from the directors. The additions made by the AO were confirmed. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee once again reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. The ld. D/R strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the loan taken from Shri Promod Soni, happens to be a loan from one of the directors of the company and, therefore, there is no question of establishing the identity of Promod Soni. The allegation of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of opening balance is without any basis and appears to be absurd inasmuch I.T.A. No. 3784/Mum/2024 3 as the only way to show the opening balance is by submitting the copy of the ledger account. The ledger account of Promod Soni is as under:- 7. A perusal of the above shows that the opening balance was Rs.72,000/- and the assessee has received Rs.1,25,000/- during the year under consideration and has repaid Rs.1,87,000/- and the closing balance is only Rs.10,000/-. All the transactions have been done through banking channels. 8. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we are of the considered view that the assessee has prima facie discharged the initial onus cast upon it by the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the additions made by the AO deserves to be deleted. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 8th November, 2024 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 08/11/2024 * * * *SC SrPs SC SrPs SC SrPs SC SrPs I.T.A. No. 3784/Mum/2024 4 आदेश की \u0014ितिलिप अ\u0019ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001b / The Appellant 2. \u0014\u001cथ\u001b / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु! / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु! ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \u0014ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड% फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai "