• Advertise
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

  • Debashree-Dutta
    Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised
  • Trilegal
    Trilegal advised Muthoot Finance
  • SAM
    Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised
  • Sippy
    Delhi High Court rules on Trademark Law
  • Stovekraft
    Arya Mathew joins Stovekraft as a
  • Punjab-and-Haryana-High-Court
    Punjab and Haryana High Court repeals
  • Sahara
    Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High
  • NCLAT
    NCLAT urges IBBI to consider modifying
  • Insurance
    Supreme Court directs insurance
  • Supreme Court terms copyright infringement a non-bailable offence
    Supreme Court terms copyright
HomeNews
13 March 2021 4:30 AM GMT

ITAT Justifies Addition for Unexplained Cash Credit regarding Unexplained Creditors shown as Bogus

By Legal Era
ITAT Justifies Addition for Unexplained Cash Credit regarding Unexplained Creditors shown as Bogus

ITAT Justifies Addition for Unexplained Cash Credit regarding Unexplained Creditors shown as Bogus The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Allahabad Bench ruled on 10 March 2021, in the matter of Mr. Malay Prasad (Appellant/ Assessee) v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent/ Revenue) that the addition for unexplained cash credit is justified in respect of unexplained...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans

ITAT Justifies Addition for Unexplained Cash Credit regarding Unexplained Creditors shown as Bogus

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Allahabad Bench ruled on 10 March 2021, in the matter of Mr. Malay Prasad (Appellant/ Assessee) v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent/ Revenue) that the addition for unexplained cash credit is justified in respect of unexplained creditors showed as bogus.

The ITAT coram comprising of Vijay Pal Rao and Ramit Kochar stated that the lower authorities have rightly invoked provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).

It held that cash deposits in the assessee's ICICI Bank account of Rs. 3,22,68,500 was the money of the assessee. It added that the two creditors namely Mr. Anuj Sonkar and Mr. Siddharth Agarwal are bogus creditors in whose name the assessee has allegedly credited the amount.

The factual background of the case is that the Assessing Officer (AO) asked the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of transactions.

The assessee submitted confirmations of Shri Chhatoo Prasad and Shri Krishna Mohan but did not submit confirmation of Shri Anuj Sonkar and Shri Siddharth Agrawal.

He failed to submit copies of the Income Tax Return (ITR) of any of the aforesaid creditors. He also did not submit bank statements or any other original records regarding financial transactions with the above-mentioned creditors.

The assessee further failed to produce any of the creditors for examination by the AO. He also failed to explain the details of the purposes of transactions. The assessee instead of discharging its primary onus as is cast under Section 68 of the Act requested the AO to summon the above parties for necessary verification.

The AO summoned Shri Anuj Sonkar by issuing a summons under section 131(1) of the 1961 Act. Mr. Anuj Sonkar appeared before the AO and denied having any financial transactions with the assessee.

In the statement of the creditor recorded by the AO, he denied having any financial transactions with the assessee. The statement of Shri Anuj Sonkar is reproduced by the AO in his assessment order.

The assessee submitted in rebuttal that said Sonkar has purposefully denied the financial transactions with the assessee, but no record/evidence as per AO was produced by the assessee to substantiate his stand.

It was held by the AO that the two creditors namely Anuj Sonkar and Siddharth Agarwal are bogus. The AO observed that Mr. Sonkar has himself denied having any financial transactions with the assessee.

It was added that as far as Mr. Agarwal is concerned, the assessee has not filed any confirmation, and the ITR of Shri Siddharth Agarwal and the AO held that this creditor is bogus and the money is assessee's own money which is wrongly represented as trade payable.

Hence, the AO made additions of Rs. 3,22,68,500 under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the IT Act, vide assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act.

An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] challenging the order of the AO for setting off the loss of the current year against income assessed to tax by AO. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the Assessee.

The assessee moved to the ITAT and it upheld the invocation of provisions of Section 68 of the IT Act by authorities below in making additions to the income of Rs. 3,22,68,500/- as unexplained cash credit.


Click to download here Full Order


TAGS:
  • ITAT 
  • Addition 
  • Unexplained Cash Credit 
  • Creditors 
  • ICICI Bank 
  • Vijay Pal Rao 
  • Ramit Kochar 
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 
  • Income Tax Act 1961 
Next Story
Similar Posts
See More
Trending Now
Tax on Alimony

Tax on Alimony

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

Insolvency Procedure For MSMEs?

Insolvency Procedure For MSMEs?

Power of Magistrate to direct FIR registration & proper investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC

Power of Magistrate to direct FIR registration & proper

Recommended Articles
Arbitration and Commercial Courts: A Jurisdictional Conflict

Arbitration and Commercial Courts: A Jurisdictional Conflict

Multiplicity of Arbitral Proceedings in India

Multiplicity of Arbitral Proceedings in India

Copyright and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

Copyright and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

Renewed Interest in Quincecare Duty of Care in Claims Against Banks

Renewed Interest in Quincecare Duty of Care in Claims

  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2022© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X