Assessee failed to explain name of unsecured loan party, though same was appearing in audited balance-sheet. Accordingly, AO treated amount of loan received as unexplained credit under section 68. Assesse's case was that loan was not obtained in the year under consideration.Held: It was duty and responsibility of assessee to file the claim correctly before AO along with supporting documents, however, in the interest of substantial justice, issue was restored for deciding the year in which loan was received, on the basis of documentary evidences, to be filed by the assessee. If loans were not received in the year under consideration, then no addition under section 68 could be made in the relevant year.
IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. & O.P. KANT, A.M.
Atul Mittal v. ITO
I.T.A. No. 3759/Del./2019
11 August, 2020
Appeal Allowed.
Appellant by: Rano Jain, Advocate, Pranshu Singhal, CA, Mansi Jain, CA
Respondent by: R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
O.P. Kant, A.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against Order, dated 27-2-2019 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-5, New Delhi [in short 'the ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2015-16 raising following grounds :--
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 43,46,970 on account of unsecured loans, made by assessing officer under section 68 of the Act.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 3,26,715 despite the fact that the credits having appeared in earlier years no addition under section 68 is called for.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer rejecting the Explanation and evidences filed by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness as well as the identities of the lenders.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in running business of footwear manufacturing in the name of a proprietary concern, M/s. Sun Infotech Asia. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30-9-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 6,11,180. The return of income filed was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment proceedings were commenced by way of issue of statutory notices under Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').