Vijay Suresh Dave v. Dy. CIT - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1224 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M. & PADMAVATHY S., A.M. Vijay Suresh Dave v. Dy. CIT ITA No. 2842/MUM/2023 7 March, 2024 Assessee by: Nishit Gandhi Department by: Rajeshwari Menon Sr. A.R. ORDER *Padmavathy S., A.M.* This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, the Ld. CIT (A)) dated 19-6-2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- '1- In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 79,44,162 being Closing balance of the old loan as well as addition to old loan received during the year without considering the compliance made by appellant in respect of to the identity capacity and genuineness of loan and learned CIT erred in confirming the same. 2. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred in not considering the facts that none of the loan creditors has denied the advancing of loan and the said loan was repaid fully later on with interest subject to Tax Deducted at Sources as applicable. But the assessing officer made addition arbitrarily on the basis of assumption and presumption and without any adverse material on I-'' record and the learned CIT erred in confirming the same. 3. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 7944162 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and learned CIT erred in confirming the same without considering the details such as Confirmation Letter, PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Acknowledgement of Income Tax Return filed , Bank Statement, Financial Statement, Affidavit as received from the Loan creditors and there is no denial from loan creditors in response to the notice of assessing officer. 4. The Appellant prays the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to set aside the order of assessing officer and transfer the matter to physical assessing officer since, the appellant was facing difficulty in explaining the facts and circumstances of the case and bringing the loan creditors before such authority for genuineness of the claim of the appellant. 2. The assessee is an individual carrying on the business as a manufacturer of aluminium ingots, allied metals and scrap in wastage steel under the name and style of M/s. Vidhi Industries as Proprietor. The assessee filed the return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 25-9-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 15,27,319. The return was processed under section 143(1) under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the IT Act'). The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The assessing officer noticed from the balance-sheet of the assessee that the assessee has outstanding unsecured loans to the tune o Rs. 79,44,162. The assessing officer added the entire amount of unsecured loan as income under section 68 of the Act for the reason that the assessee has not furnished any details/explanations with regard to the identity of the loan creditors, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The assessing officer also disallowed the interest paid to the tune of Rs. 13,633 for same reason that the loan is not genuine. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1224 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M. & PADMAVATHY S., A.M.

Vijay Suresh Dave v. Dy. CIT

ITA No. 2842/MUM/2023

7 March, 2024

Assessee by: Nishit Gandhi

Department by: Rajeshwari Menon Sr. A.R.

ORDER

Padmavathy S., A.M.

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, the Ld. CIT (A)) dated 19-6-2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:-

'1- In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 79,44,162 being Closing balance of the old loan as well as addition to old loan received during the year without considering the compliance made by appellant in respect of to the identity capacity and genuineness of loan and learned CIT erred in confirming the same.

2. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred in not considering the facts that none of the loan creditors has denied the advancing of loan and the said loan was repaid fully later on with interest subject to Tax Deducted at Sources as applicable. But the assessing officer made addition arbitrarily on the basis of assumption and presumption and without any adverse material on I-'' record and the learned CIT erred in confirming the same.

3. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 7944162 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and learned CIT erred in confirming the same without considering the details such as Confirmation Letter, PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Acknowledgement of Income Tax Return filed , Bank Statement, Financial Statement, Affidavit as received from the Loan creditors and there is no denial from loan creditors in response to the notice of assessing officer.

4. The Appellant prays the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to set aside the order of assessing officer and transfer the matter to physical assessing officer since, the appellant was facing difficulty in explaining the facts and circumstances of the case and bringing the loan creditors before such authority for genuineness of the claim of the appellant.

2. The assessee is an individual carrying on the business as a manufacturer of aluminium ingots, allied metals and scrap in wastage steel under the name and style of M/s. Vidhi Industries as Proprietor. The assessee filed the return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 25-9-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 15,27,319. The return was processed under section 143(1) under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the IT Act'). The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The assessing officer noticed from the balance-sheet of the assessee that the assessee has outstanding unsecured loans to the tune o Rs. 79,44,162. The assessing officer added the entire amount of unsecured loan as income under section 68 of the Act for the reason that the assessee has not furnished any details/explanations with regard to the identity of the loan creditors, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The assessing officer also disallowed the interest paid to the tune of Rs. 13,633 for same reason that the loan is not genuine.