TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds deletion of Rs. 1.07 Cr addition under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>ACIT 3 (1), Bhopal Versus M/s Sunegra Foods Pvt. Ltd.</h3> ACIT 3 (1), Bhopal Versus M/s Sunegra Foods Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of addition of cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2007-08.Summary:The appeal was filed by the revenue against the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,07,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The Appellate Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the assessee, where it was established that the cash credit was received from a non-resident Indian settled in the United Kingdom through a cheque drawn on an NRE (External) account. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) deleted the addition after verifying the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, as well as the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the creditor's identity and creditworthiness were proven, and the genuineness of the transaction was established through various documents, including a certificate of net worth and foreign inward remittance confirmation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the revenue failed to provide any material to challenge the findings.The revenue contended that the genuineness of the transaction was not adequately explained, as the repayment was made to a different individual than the creditor. However, the assessee argued that the identity of the creditor was established through submitted documents, and the repayment was made as per instructions. The Tribunal reviewed the confirmation letter, bank statements, and certificates provided by the assessee, which supported the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the repayment details and statements recorded by the Inspector, finding that the assessee had fulfilled the burden of proving the transaction's legitimacy. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was justified, as the revenue did not present any new evidence to dispute the findings.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the deletion of the cash credit addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act for the relevant assessment year.
TaxTMI 