sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

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
                     ,   "" 

       .. ,       ,                                  

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

 Mr.Bhadresh Ratanpal Shah,         / Income Tax Officer,
 A-203, Sanskar Dham,                   3(2),
 Opp. Sharda Mandir,                    Kalyan,
 Lal Chowki,                            Mumbai.
 Agra road,
       ( /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 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Article Management Solutions System Article Management Software S

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions