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 addition of unsecured loans value, dismisses appeal. No questions of law raised.</h1> <h3>M/s R.B. Electronics, Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Patna, Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-5, Patna</h3> The Tribunal's decision confirming the addition of Rs. 9,00,000 representing unsecured loans was upheld. The court found that the evidence supported the ... Additions u/s 68 - Unsecured loans returned having not been proved with substantiating evidence - HELD THAT:- As the creditor’s bank statement was produced which disclosed a credit of the very same amount just prior to the alleged loan. The source of such credit was not proved before the authority. Hence, though the identity of the creditor was proved, neither was the creditworthiness of the creditor nor the genuineness of the transaction established. In the case of Mr. Alam also, though the identity of the creditor is established, proof of source of income and the genuineness of the transaction is wanting. We find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal and we find no questions of law arising from the order. The factual aspects have been dealt with elaborately and concurrently by the AO, the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. There is no perversity on the analysis of evidence produced and the same is also not in contravention of the binding precedents. In fact, the binding precedents support the order of the Tribunal affirming those of the lower authorities. Issues involved:The judgment involves the assessment year 2005-06 and pertains to additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loans returned by the assessee without substantiating evidence.Issue 1:The first issue questions whether the Tribunal's order confirming the addition of Rs. 9,00,000 representing unsecured loans was made disregarding evidence and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and relevant decisions.The assessee contended that evidence before the Assessing Officer should have prevented the additions, citing various court decisions to support their argument. The Revenue opposed the appeal, relying on Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee regarding the source of received sums.Issue 2:The second issue questions whether the Tribunal was justified in not adjudicating on the disallowance of proportionate interest paid against the unsecured loans.The loan details from various individuals were examined. For Ms. Gunmala Devi's loan, the lack of proof of the creditor's capacity to lend Rs. 5,00,000 was highlighted. Similarly, for Mr. A.P.N. Singh's loan, discrepancies in the source of income were noted. Mr. Syed Aijaz Alam's loan was also scrutinized, revealing inconsistencies in the source of income and genuineness of the transaction.The Tribunal's orders were upheld as no questions of law were found to arise, and the evidence supported the decisions of the lower authorities. The second question regarding interest payment did not need addressing as the unsecured loans were not proven.The Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
