Case Law Details
Mahendra Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
It is an admitted factual position that this assessee is assessed and lives in Hyderabad whereas all the corresponding loan creditors parties are from Kolkata only. And that too, there is not even a single loan agreement between the assessee and the said parties, reflecting the terms of repayment or interest, except the former self-styled repayment instances along with interest component at varying rates.
Mr. Ratnakar replied in response to our query that the assessee is the promoter/Managing Director of a very reputed entity and his staff members in Kolkata only had arranged for the impugned un-secured loans. This clinching explanation hardly comes to the assessee’s rescue since going against all human probabilities that a person, un-known in Kolkata would be able to receive such huge sums of unsecured loans without any surety. This is in addition to the fact that he has not produced a single employee having arranged all these loans. We therefore conclude in light of the foregoing settle law as well as the relevant facts and circumstances herein that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned un-secured loan sums. We thus find no reason to interfere with the learned lower authorities’ action making the impugned addition. The same stands confirmed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This assessee appeal for AY.2010-1 1 arises from the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad’s order dated 0 1-12-2017 passed in case No. 0082 / CIT(A)-2 / Hyd / 20 16-17, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
