2019 (7) TMI 611 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed, addition under Section 68 deleted for Assessment Year 2010-11.

The Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue without costs, affirming the decisions of the CIT(A) and the ITAT to delete the addition of unexplained ... Addition u/s 68 - unexplained credit - addition was an ‘unsecured loans’ - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- The loans borrowed from Deepak Bhatia and Nancy Bhatia of ₹ 2 and 4 lacs respectively were old loans and, therefore, rightly not treated by the CIT (A) as income of the Assessee. As regards the loans given by Jyoti Kukreja and and Suresh Kukreja, the bank statements, addresses and PAN numbers of of the said two individuals were provided. The CIT (A) found no reason to disbelieve the creditworthiness of the two individuals or the genuineness of the loan transactions. Indeed, if the AO had any doubt in this regard, he could have summoned and recorded the statements of the said individuals, which option was not chosen to be exercised. This being a factual determination by the CIT (A), and having been concurred with by the ITAT, the Court does not find any reason to interfere. - Decided against revenue Issues:1. Addition of unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of the addition made by the CIT(A).Analysis:1. The appellant, the Revenue, challenged the ITAT's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,56,15,135 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The appellant contended that the Assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loans. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal and deleted the addition after considering the Assessee's explanation, a decision upheld by the ITAT.2. The Revenue argued that since the Assessee did not participate in the ITAT proceedings, the matter should have been remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh determination. However, the Court noted that the Assessee's Authorized Representative did present an explanation before the CIT(A), which was duly considered. The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO's conclusion in the remand report, leading the Court to reject the argument for remand.3. The loans in question were sourced from four individuals, with two loans being old and not treated as income. The loans from Jyoti Kukreja and Suresh Kukreja were scrutinized by the CIT(A), who found no reason to doubt their creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. The AO had the option to summon and record statements from these individuals but chose not to do so. This factual determination by the CIT(A), supported by the ITAT, was deemed satisfactory by the Court.4. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for determination, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs. The judgment affirmed the decisions of the CIT(A) and the ITAT regarding the deletion of the addition of unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the relevant Assessment Year.