Girish Madhukar Rathi Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
The issue under consideration is that confirming the addition made u/s 68 by A.O. in respect of the loan taken from father of the appellant on mere suspicion.
ITAT have heard both the sides on this limited issue of making addition u/s 68 of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has Running Account in matters of taking loans from Shri Madhukar Rathi (father) and Shri Madhukar Rathi in turn taking loans from Rahul Anil Birla and Nand Sales Corporation. The said transactions are undisputedly through banking. It is further an undisputed fact that during the year under consideration, the assessee repaid to the tune of Rs.1,25,50,000/- to Shri Madhukar Rathi. So, it is case of taking loans and repayment of loans through a Running Account. Regarding balance of loan in the Running Account, it is also an undisputed fact that, in past too, no addition of these loans amounts were added by AO despite the similar loan transactions with Shri Madhukar Rathi and, in turn, Shri Madhukar Rathi with Rahul Anil Birla, Rakesh N. Birla and Nand Sales Corporation. In our view, therefore, it is case of mere suspicion of the AO that led to invoking of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Otherwise, there is no evidence with Revenue to demonstrate that it is case of money laundering, non discharge of onus by the assessee. With the loans taken from Birlas & others, Shri Madhukar Rathi is capable of providing loan of Rs. 79 lakhs to the assessee. AO has not disturbed the loans in the cases of Birlas & others. In our view, there is no case of addition u/s 68 of the Act. The additions made by the AO are not sustainable. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the grounds raised by the assessee are required to be allowed. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune, dated 28.10.2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. The grounds raised by assessee are extracted as under:-
On the facts and in law –
1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 79 lakhs made u/s 68 in respect of the loan taken from Shri Madhukar Rathi, father of the appellant.
2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had failed to prove the creditworthiness of Shri Madhukar Rathi and accordingly, the addition made of Rs. 79 lakhs u/s 68 was justified.
3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Shri Madhukar Rathi had confirmed giving of loan to the assessee and further the sources were also proved from which Shri Madhukar Rathi had given loan to the assessee and hence, the addition made u/s 68 of Rs. 79 lakhs was not justified at all and the same ought to have been deleted.
3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is son of Shri Madhukar Rathi. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.56, 10,180/-. At the end of the scrutiny proceedings, the assessment was completed determining the assessed income at Rs. 1,75,53,770/-. Apart from others, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.79 lakhs u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The contents of para 7 and its sub-paras are relevant in this regard. As per discussion given in the said para the assessee has Running Account in matters of taking and repayment of loans from his father Shri Madhukar Rathi. Further, it is also discussed that Shri Madhukar Rathi (father) in turn takes and repays loans from Birla family (Rahul Anil Birla, Rakesh N. Birla and Nand Sales Corporation). The details of taking loans and repayment of loans are tabulated as under:-
“Annexure I : Statement showing details of Interest received from Girish Rathi by Mr. Madhukar Rathi
