Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 deleted as AO failed to call information from bank of loan creditor

Addition u/s 69 deleted as AO failed to call information from bank of loan creditor. Case restored back for verifying creditworthiness of the loan creditor by calling information from the Bank

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2439 (2018) 07 ITAT

The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the addition u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act).

Assessing Officer found that the assessee has received a loan. The AO issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to the loan creditor but no reply was received from him. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the same to the income of the assessee.

On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the creditworthiness of the loan creditor was not proved by the assessee.

Before the Tribunal the assessee submitted that the assessee filed copy of confirmation of loan wherein, he had given his bank account number but the AO thereafter had made no enquiry from the bank of the loan creditor to verify about the creditworthiness of the loan creditor . Therefore, it was contended that as the assessee had discharged his burden by proving the identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness by filing bank account no. of the loan creditor, the addition made was not sustainable in law and should be deleted.

The Tribunal opined that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer had failed to call for information from the bank of loan creditor to verify the creditworthiness of the loan creditor. However, the assessee had also failed to file details about loan creditor to prove his creditworthiness as to whether the same was out of his earnings or from his borrowings from others.

The Tribunal restored back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying the creditworthiness of the loan creditor by calling information from the Bank and thereafter, adjudicate the issue afresh.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits

Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…

21 hours ago
  • bankruptcy

SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC

Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…

24 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus

Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…

2 days ago
  • ITAT

Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC

Application though named as rectification but if tax imposed is not legitimate then it also touches upon the merit –…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of current FMV to be further…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

AO was directed to serve notice of hearing through physical mode upon assessee 

ITAT directed AO to serve notice of hearing both through electronic and physical mode upon the assessee  In a recent…

2 days ago