DCIT Vs Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur)
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transaction duly proved. Accordingly, CIT(A) order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Facts- AO observed that the assessee has deposited huge cash to the tune of Rs. 43,29,46,364/- into the current account. Post considering the reply from assessee, AO made addition of Rs. 24,03,02,520/- on account of cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. CIT(A) deleted the said addition. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Further, AO also made addition in respect of unsecured loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- since assessee had failed to submit copy of return of income, bank statement, and documents in proof of identity of Survaas Homes Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A) deleted the said addition. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the said cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained credits, especially when the figures corresponded to the same amount with the entries recorded in the cash account. CIT(A), observed that the assessee had submitted daily bills wise sales report in respect of its retail audit, of course, on sample basis, including mode payment specifying as to which were cash sales and which were card sales. Therefore, CIT(A) was fully justified in observing that the Assessing Officer had no justification in discarding the documents submitted by the appellant, relating to the cash deposits made with the said two banks. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the said ground of challenge raised by the department in this appeal, and uphold the deletion of the said addition.
