Hemant Kumar I.T.O. (ITAT Delhi)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has set aside additions made by the tax authorities regarding unsecured loans and property advances for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the case of Hemant Kumar I.T.O. The Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct a fresh examination of the evidence related to these transactions.
The appeals, ITA Nos. 1464 and 1465/DEL/2019, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Gurgaon, dated March 31, 2016. The core of the dispute revolved around additions totaling Rs. 2,51,27,502/- on account of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2010-11, and Rs. 1,66,00,616/- on account of advances received for booking plots/flats. Similar issues, including cash deposits of Rs. 4,84,03,500/- and unsecured loans of Rs. 3,18,61,638/-, were raised for AY 2011-12.
During the hearing, the counsel for the assessee contended that the CIT(A) had disregarded crucial evidence presented for both assessment years and that the CIT(A)’s order contained “ostensible errors.” The counsel requested that the matter be remitted back to the AO for a fresh adjudication, allowing for a thorough re-examination of the submitted evidence.
Specific instances were highlighted regarding the unsecured loans for AY 2010-11. For example, in the case of Smt. Sunita, where Rs. 17,00,000/- was received and Rs. 12,50,000/- repaid, the addition was made for the net amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- received from Sh. Veenit Bhatia through a court settlement was questioned, as were loans from M/s Duggal Properties P. Ltd. (Rs. 75,00,000/-) which were reportedly repaid. The assessee’s representative also pointed out that evidence furnished for loans from Mr. Sanjay Kohli (Rs. 14,25,000/-), Mrs. Manika Man Sukhani (Rs. 70,00,000/-), Mr. Shyam Bihari Lal (Rs. 23,00,000/-), Mr. Rajesh Juneja (Rs. 3,00,000/-), M/s Luxmi Fruit Centre (Rs. 17,00,000/-), and M/s Shiv Expo Mark P. Ltd. (Rs. 25,00,000/-) were allegedly not examined by the CIT(A). In the case of Sh. Shyam Bihari Lal, it was noted that the assessee had expired, and while Rs. 26,00,000/- was received, Rs. 3,00,000/- was repaid, with the addition made for the net amount.
