Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee stated that the assessee during the year under consideration took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from one Shri Amit Kr. Jain, a close relative, by account payee demand draft. The assessee furnished copies of P&L Account, Balance Sheet, I. T. Returns, bank statement for FY 2006-07 relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08 along with confirmation from Shri Amit Kr. Jain.
Before us it was contended that neither the Assessing Officer nor CIT(A) has properly appraised the facts regarding this loan of Rs. 3 lacs as the assessee in his return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07 has disclosed unsecured advances given to various parties which were returned to the assessee in the relevant year cash and deposited the same amount in the bank account amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs on each of the occasions on 26.08.2006 and 28.08.2006. As these facts were not verified by the lower 2 ITA 688/K/2011 Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain A.Y.07-08 authorities, we cannot decide this issue at this level. Hence, we restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh verification as per law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
I.T.A No. 688/Kol/2011
Assessment Year: 2007-08
Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain
Vs
Income-tax Officer
Date of pronouncement: 08.12.2011
ORDER
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A), Durgapur in Appeal No.75 / CIT(A)/DGP/2009-10 dated 28.02.2011. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-1(3), Durgapur u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2007-08 vide his order dated 30.12.2009.
2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 3 lacs made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained loan. For this, assessee raised following ground no.1:
“For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unsecured loan by wrongly treating the same as undisclosed money of the assessee.”
3. I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee during the year under consideration took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from one Shri Amit Kr. Jain, a close relative, by account payee demand draft. The assessee furnished copies of P&L Account, Balance Sheet, I. T. Returns, bank statement for FY 2006-07 relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08 along with confirmation from Shri Amit Kr. Jain. Before us it was contended that neither the Assessing Officer nor CIT(A) has properly appraised the facts regarding this loan of Rs. 3 lacs as the assessee in his return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07 has disclosed unsecured advances given to various parties which were returned to the assessee in the relevant year cash and deposited the same amount in the bank account amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs on each of the occasions on 26.08.2006 and 28.08.2006. As these facts were not verified by the lower authorities, we cannot decide this issue at this level. Hence, we restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh verification as per law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5. Order is pronounced in open court.
