Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Asit Surendrabhai Shah (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act doesn’t attract as unsecured loan availed was repaid in the next financial year through cheque payments to the creditor and bank statement thereof was filed.
Facts- The sole issue involved in all these appeals are unsecured loans received from Smt. Hansaben M. Patel, Shri Kamal Gohil and Shri Mukesh Jayantilal Shah by the respective assessees and the additions made by the Assessing Officer made u/s. 68 which were repaid in the next financial year by the assessees, therefore the same were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the unsecured loan availed was repaid in the next financial year to the creditor namely Smt. Hansaben M. Patel through cheque payments and the bank statement also filed before the Lower Authorities. Therefore we are of the considered opinion, the provisions of section 68 does not attract in the above transaction and thereby we uphold the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the unsecured loans availed from Smt. Hansaben M. Patel.
The so called unsecured loan was given by Account Payee cheques and also repaid by the assessee in the next financial year through banking channels. The recovery proceedings u/s. 226(3) initiated against Mukesh J. shah was also dropped by the A.O. Therefore the provisions of section 68 does not attract of the loan transactions between the assessee M/s. Savitaben Mangaldas Trust and Shri Mukesh J. Shah. Therefore the addition on this account is also liable to be deleted and the grounds raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
