Case Law Details
ITO Vs More Marketing Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT held that ITR and bank statements were sufficient to prove the genuinety and for creditworthiness under Section 68 of Income Tax Act.
Facts: These appeals are filed by the Revenue against different orders of Ld.CIT(A) dated 28.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15.
Brief facts of the case were that, assessee has filed its return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of ₹.17,11,770/-. The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee along with the questionnaire. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has borrowed unsecured loans of ₹3,89,04,334/-. Since assessee has not filed confirmations in some of the cases, the assessee was asked to submit the details of the parties i.e., name, address, confirmations, loan amount, interest rate etc.,. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the loan creditors calling for confirmation with copy of ITR, bank statement.
Since none of the parties confirmed the transactions nor submitted any documentary evidences, therefore Assessing Officer disallowed the unsecured loans u/s. 68 of the Act. Further, he observed that assessee has debited the interest expenses of ₹.34,99,885/-. No confirmations were filed in some of the cases and since none of the unsecured loan parties responded to the notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act he has disallowed interest paid to those parties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
