Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Smt. Alkaben D. Patel,, Anand vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,, Anand on 1 March, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ
धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD - BENCH 'A'
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 2110/Ahd/2014
नधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2010-11
Smt.Alkaben D. Patel DCIT, Mehsana Circle
1, Jalaram Building Vs Mehsana.
Old Court Road
Anand 388 001.
अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ / (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri D.H. Patel, AR
Revenue by : Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.DR
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 23/02/2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 01/03/2018
ORDER
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against order of ld.CIT(A)-II, Baroda dated 2.1.2014 for the Asstt.Year 2010-11.
2. Ground of appeal taken by the assessee is argumentative in nature. In brief her grievance is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.3,74,000/-.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of supply of labourers and office staff. She has filed her return of income on 27.9.2010 declaring total income at Rs.3,31,622/-. It ITA No.2110/Ahd/2014 -2- came to the notice of the AO that she has taken unsecured loans from following five persons:
i) Shri Ramesh P. Harijan Rs.19,000/-
ii) Shri Sureshbhai N. Patel Rs.3,00,000/-
iii) Vishnubhai U. Talpada Rs.19,000/-
iv) Natvar J. Harijan Rs.18,000/-
v) Nayana B. Mistry Rs.18,000/-
According to the ld.AO, assessee failed to discharge onus cast upon her by virtue of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, hence he made addition. Appeal to the ld.CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.
4. Before us, her husband Shri D.H.Patel filed power of attorney on behalf of his wife for appearing before the Tribunal. He admitted that out of five creditors assessee could not submit any explanation or confirmation from Ramesh P. Harijan, Natvar J. Harijan and Vishnubhai Talpada. With regard to other viz. Sureshbhai N. Patel and Nayana B. Mistry the assessee has filed confirmation, PAN, details of their land holding. Replies of the assessee vide letter dated 17.12.2013 is available on appeal papers. Similarly, photo copy of PAN card of Shri Patel Sureshkumar Patel bearing PAN No.ANQPP 2186 D have been placed on record. Copy of form no.7/12 exhibiting land holding owned by Shri Sureshkumar Patel has been placed on record. Shri D.H.Patel contended that as far as loans taken from Suresh Patel is concerned, assessee has fulfilled ingredients of section 68 and no addition be made. He also contended that as far as Shri Vishnubhai Talpada is concerned the ITA No.2110/Ahd/2014 -3- assessee has repaid loan of Rs.19,000/- on 6.12.2010 before assessment was completed and said employee has left job of the assessee. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities below.
5. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts may be treated as income of the assessee of that previous year.
6. Assessee is required to prove identity of the creditors, their credit- worthiness and genuineness of the transaction. So far as Shri Ramesh Harijan, Natvar Harijan and Vishnubhai Talpada are concerned, assessee failed to file any confirmation, therefore he failed to prove genuineness as well as credit-worthiness of these creditors. Loans taken from these three persons are to be treated as unexplained credit and addition to this extent is confirmed.
As far as loan taken from Sureshbhai Patel and Nayana B. Mistry are concerned, the assessee has submitted their confirmation, their PAN and other details. Therefore, she has discharged onus cast upon her by virtue of section 68 and addition to the extent i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- (unsecured loans from Shri Sureshbhai N. Patel) and Rs.18,000/-
ITA No.2110/Ahd/2014 -4-(unsecured loan from Nayana B. Mistry) are treated as genuine and addition to this extent is deleted.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Pronounced in the Open Court on 1st March, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated, 01/03/2018