Case Law Details
Rupal Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
We notice that the assessee has not only discharged the primary onus by filing confirmation and the IT returns and balance sheet of the lenders, the assessee is also stated to have paid interest in most of the cases and deducted TDS thereon. Noticiably, the lenders are the family members and they are also filing their return of income declaring income which is in excess of money lent. The creditworthiness is thus reasonably established. Apart from these facts, as stated, the loans were also stood repaid in the subsequent assessment year which transcends all other considerations in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj.); CIT vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 taxmann.com 70 (P&H) & Panna Devi Chowdry vs. CIT, 208 ITR 849 (Bom.). Therefore when the facts are seeing hostically, we find that assessee has adduced evidences which supports the bona fides of money borrowed. We thus reverse the action taken by the Revenue Authorities under Section 68 of the Act and restore the position taken by the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 23.12.2016 arising from the assessment order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
