Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Mr.Bhadresh Ratanpal Shah, A-203, Sanskar Dham, Opp. Sharda Mandir, Lal Chowki, Agra road, Kalyan, Mumbai-421301. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(2), Kalyan, Mumbai.
December, 18th 2014
                     ,   "" 
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI

     BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, (JM)
       .. ,       ,                                  

                    ./I.T.A. No.667/Mum/2011
                 (   / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

 Mr.Bhadresh Ratanpal Shah,         / Income Tax Officer,
 A-203, Sanskar Dham,                   3(2),
                                    Vs.
 Opp. Sharda Mandir,                    Kalyan,
 Lal Chowki,                            Mumbai.
 Agra road,
 Kalyan,
 Mumbai-421301.
       ( /Appellant)                 ..     (    / Respondent)

          . /   . /PAN/GIR No. : ACKPS4869F

            / Assessee by                  Ms. Natasha Mangat

              / Revenue by                 R N D'souza


             / Date of Hearing
                                                :   12.12..2014
            /Date of Pronouncement : 17.12..2014

                                  / O R D E R

Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:

       The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated
15.11.2010 passed by Ld CIT(A)-I, Thane and it relates to the assessment year
2005-06. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming
the addition of Rs.4.00 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Act.







2.     We heard the parties and perused the record.        During the course of
assessment proceedings, the assessing officer examined unsecured loans
received by the assessee. The assessee had borrowed a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs
from a person named Shri Kuldeep Nehra and since he could not prove the said
loan, he offered the same as his income. Accordingly, the AO assessed the
above said amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs as the income of the assessee. In the
                                         2                       ITA. No667/Mum/2011



appellate proceedings before Ld CIT(A), the first appellate authority also
confirmed the addition for the reason that the assessee himself had voluntarily
offered the above said amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs as his income.


3.     The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the addition of Rs.4.00
lakhs, even though it was voluntarily offered by him. The Ld Counsel for the
assessee, on the earlier occasion, submitted that the assessee was constrained
to offer the above said amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs as his income, since he had lost
contact with the creditor. She further submitted that the assessee has since
established contact with the creditor Shri Kuldeep Nehra and accordingly prayed
that the matter may be restored back to the file of the AO in order to enable the
assessee to furnish necessary documents to prove the loan.            However, the
bench directed the Ld A.R to furnish the documents that are intended to be
brought on record as additional evidences before the Tribunal. Accordingly the
case was adjourned to 12.12.2014. However, on that date, the Ld A.R submitted
that the assessee could not contact Shri Kuldeep Nehra and hence he could not
furnish necessary documents.        When specifically asked as to whether the
assessee would be in a position to prove the loan credit by furnishing all the
documents, the Ld A.R fairly admitted that the same would be difficult for the
assessee.    However, the Ld A.R furnished copy of the bank account of the
assessee to show that the loan amount was repaid by way of Bank demand draft.


4.     We have already noticed that the assessee has offered the unsecured
loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs obtained from Shri Kuldeep Nehra, since he could not
prove the same. Before us also, the assessee has expressed his inability to
prove the said loan credit. There should not be any dispute that the primary
burden to prove the cash credit is placed upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act,
i.e., the assessee has to prove the three main ingredients, viz., the identity of the
creditor, the credit worthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of
transactions. In the instant case, admittedly, the assessee has failed to prove
these three main ingredients in respect of the loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs obtained
from Shri Kuldeep Nehra. Before us, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decisions
rendered by SMC bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s G.S. Fab (P) Ltd Vs. ITO
(ITA No.1990/Del/2012 dated 30-08-2012 Delhi) and M/s AIR Inn Sales &
Services Vs. ITO (ITA No.2758/Mum/2011 dated 19-12-2012 Mumbai). We are
                                         3                      ITA. No667/Mum/2011








of the view that the assessee cannot take support of these decisions for the
reason that the assessee himself has agreed to offer the above said amount of
Rs.4.00 lakhs as his income before the assessing officer. The contention of the
repayment of loan will also not absolve the assessee from discharging the
primary burden placed upon him u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the
view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the assessment of Rs.4.00
lakhs, referred above.


5.      In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.


      The above order was pronounced in the open court on 17th Dec, 2014.

            17th Dec,2014    


     sd                                          sd-

(  /SANJAY GARG)                             ( ..  / B.R. BASKARAN)
     / JUDICIAL MEMBER                          / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

 Mumbai: 17th Dec,2014.
. ../ SRL , Sr. PS

        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.      / The Respondent.
3.     () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4.      / CIT concerned
5.      ,     ,                  /
     DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6.     / Guard file.
                                                           / BY ORDER,
             true copy
                                                    (Asstt. Registrar)
                                         ,   /ITAT, Mumbai

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting