Case Law Details
Case Name : ACIT Vs Praveen Kumar (ITAT Agra)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 144/Agra/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/07/2014
Related Assessment Year : 2009- 10
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
CA Prarthana Jalan
In the case of ACIT v/s Praveen Kumar there was an addition made on account of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon. All the details were furnished before the A.O in form of account of the creditors along with acknowledgement of their income tax returns and bank statement .But summons issued to lenders were not responded . However during the course of appellate proceedings the lenders appeared before the assessing officer and gave their statements and accepted the lending of money. In the remand report the A.O himself accepted the loan to be genuine and accordingly assessee was given relief by the CIT(A), but the A.O challenged the deletion in the ITAT. Hon’ble ITAT dismissed the revenue appeal by observing as under :-
“We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered factual matrix of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. We have noted that in the remand proceedings the A.O. himself has accepted that “loans taken by Praveen Kumar (i.e. assessee) ……. appears to be genuine”. Thus, the A.O. himself has given a clean chit to the assessee and yet when the ld. CIT(A) deletes the addition in respect of the same, the A.O. is in appeal before us. It is not possible to reconcile these two conflicting stand taken by the A.O. In any event, we find that the ld. CIT(A) in a very detailed and analytical order, deleted the impugned addition for good and sufficient reasons. The loans were given from the overdraft bank accounts and no cash deposits were made before issuance of cheques. Identity of the creditors stands proved and the credit worthiness of the creditors is also reasonably established. In view of the fact that the genuineness of the borrowing/credit itself is established, there cannot be any good reason to dispute the same with respect to payment of interest either. As the ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed, genuineness of the unsecured loans under consideration does not remain undisputed in the light of the remand report submitted by the A.O. himself. In view of these discussions and bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we see no merits in the grievances raised before us by the A.O. The well reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be confirmed on merits as well. In view of these discussions, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the same”
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
