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>ITAT allows appeal, deletes addition under Section 68, disallows interest disallowance, dismisses Section 69C ground.</h1> <h3>Bimal Hansaria Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (2), Jaipur</h3> Bimal Hansaria Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (2), Jaipur - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,07,240/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Sustaining the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee amounting to Rs. 2,02,673/-.3. Confirming the addition of Rs. 38,315/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,07,240/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 15,07,240/- under Section 68, arguing that confirmations, PAN details, and other supporting documents were provided for all depositors. The ITAT observed that the assessee had submitted correct PANs, confirmations, and bank statements for the depositors. Specific cases were analyzed:- M.S. Jewellers: The amount of Rs. 50,000/- was received by cheque, with PAN and confirmation provided. The transaction was a return of balance, thus the addition was unjustified.- Rishab Marble: Full address, PAN, confirmation, and bank statements were provided. The transaction was through banking channels, establishing the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the depositor.- Pushpa Jalan, Saloni Hansaria, Ashok Hansaria, Sita Ram Gupta, Rajat Medical and Provision, Radha Mohan Gupta, Govind Ram, Giriraj Agarwal, Amit Kumar Sanan, Neelam Kasat, Pushpa Holani, Ram Babu Gupta, Krishna Bright Metal Ind.: In each case, the assessee provided full address, PAN, confirmation, and bank statements. Transactions were through cheques, and the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the depositors were established.The ITAT cited several case laws supporting the assessee's position, including:- Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO: Once the existence of creditors is proved, the assessee's onus is discharged.- Kanhaiya Lal Jangid Vs CIT: The burden does not extend to proving the source of the creditor’s funds.- Asstt.CIT Vs. Swami Complex (P) Ltd.: The AO must verify confirmations before adding cash credits.- Prem Lata Sharma Vs. ITO: Confirmations and PAN were sufficient to delete the addition.Based on these observations, the ITAT deleted the addition under Section 68, allowing this ground of the assessee’s appeal.2. Sustaining the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee amounting to Rs. 2,02,673/-:The ITAT noted that since the addition under Section 68 was deleted, the interest paid on these deposits was genuine. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 2,02,673/- was unjustified, and this ground of the assessee’s appeal was allowed.3. Confirming the addition of Rs. 38,315/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act:The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated upon this ground raised by the assessee. Due to the lack of a decision by the CIT(A), this ground was dismissed.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with the ITAT deleting the addition under Section 68 and the disallowance of interest, while dismissing the ground related to Section 69C due to non-adjudication by the CIT(A). The order was pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2017.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
