Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Dayal Steel P. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that AO is not justified in adding unsecured loan received u/s. 68 as AO has rejected the evidences furnished by the appellant without establishing falsity of the documents. Further, documents duly proved identities and source of investors.
Facts- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the year, the assessee received unsecured loan from 22 individuals and 3 HUF to the tune of Rs. 2,25,40,000/-. AO held that, the parties do not have creditworthiness to extend unsecured loans to the assessee. Hence, AO held that, the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the parties and made addition of Rs.2,25,40,000/- u/s 68 of I.T Act.
CIT(A) deleted the addition. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that, AO has rejected the evidences furnished by the appellant without establishing falsity of the documents filed by the assessee. The personal identities of these investors were proved, the sources have been proved, the ITRs and the subsequent repayments has been examined. Having so examined the ld.CIT( A) came to a conclusion that the AO is not justified treating the unsecured loans received u/ s. 68 of I.T Act 1961.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
