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’].
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in ITA No.0082/CIT(A)-2/Hyd/2016-17, dated 1st December, 2017 is contrary to law and facts and learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the said appeal.
2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.17,61,86,737 u/s. 68 of the Act. He has not appreciated the submissions of the appellant and the relevant documentary evidence produced before him that the loans received during the year from different persons are genuine. The appellant has fully discharged the onus cast upon him in explaining the loan amounts received by him and has adequately proved the identity of loan creditors, genuineness of transactions and the credit worthiness of the creditors.
3. The findings / observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the addition of Rs.17,61,86,737 under section 68 of the Act are against the facts and evidence on record.
4. For these and other grounds that will be submitted at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 17,61,86,737 be deleted.
5. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the hearing”.
3. We next note that the Ld.CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action adding Section 68 un-explained cash credits vide following detailed discussion:
