Itat Delhi removes unclear adding credits

Mhadev Milk PVT. LLC against Ito (Itat Delhi)

In the case of Mahadev Dairy PVT. ITO Delhi LLC, income Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi made a decision in favor of the appraiser by removing the addition of 25 varnishes made in accordance with Section 68 of the Income Tax Law, 1961 as an unclear cash loan. The dispute arose during 2014-15 assessment, where the assessment officer (AO) added the amount, referring to the failure of the appraiser to prove the authenticity and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan received from SH. Kuldape Nagar. The income tax authorized (CIT) (A)) supported this supplement, stating that the monetary deposits were made in the Nagar’s bank account before the loan is continued. However, ITAT found that Nagar was a Mahadev Mobyy PVT promoter. LLC and it was evaluated by the same jurisdiction.

After inspection, the Itat Delhi bench noted that the lower authorities did not carefully study the creditworthiness of SH. Kuldeep Nagar, considering their existing cash records. Since the appraiser successfully established the identity, authenticity and creditworthiness of the transaction, ITAT directed in his favor. The tribunal concluded that a loan from the promoter cannot be considered as an incomprehensible cash loan, which leads to the removal of 25 varnishes. The appeal was allowed on December 5, 2024. This decision reinforces the importance of evaluating cash credit transactions, especially when funds come from promoters.

Full text of the order Itat Delhi

Appeal of this appraiser for the year of the estimation of 2014-15, which arises against the commissioner from income tax (appeal) -6 (shorter than, “CIT (a)”), Delhi order of September 30, 2019 is accepted in case No. Cit (a) Delhi -6/10163/2019-20 involvement of the proceedings in accordance with Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Law in 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Law”).

2. The body called twice. None appears at the request of the appraiser. Accordingly, we passed the former part against the appraiser.

3. The experienced representative of the department brutally submits during the hearing that both lower authorities have rightly summoned Section 68 unclear money loans to add 28 rubles representing unsecured loans from SH. Kuldape Nagar. Our attention is additionally invited to the evaluation discussion dated 07.12.2016, that the appraiser has not been able to prove the authenticity/creditworthiness of these loans coming to his books in the relevant previous year. And also that w. The Kuldeep Nagar bank account witnessed cash deposits and then relevant loans to appraisers.

4. We have given a thoughtful consideration of the above -mentioned significant complaint of the appraiser, as well as the relevant discussions of the lower authorities that make the contested supplement. We do not find reasons to disagree with the instant significant complaint of Aseesea, since the challenged unsecured loan came from no other than its promoters, as can be seen from the lower appeal discussion CIT (a) in paragraph 4.2, as well as that it is also evaluated in paragraph The same jurisdiction. It is followed that both lower authorities have not studied SH. Nagar’s credit work in the light of cash in his hands available in his books, so as to question his ability to transfer such loans to his own company. Accordingly, we see merit in a single substantial complaint of the appraiser, when it released all three aspects of identity, authenticity and creditworthiness of the contested unsecured loan of 25 rubles for being the subject of a decision before us. Thus, the appraiser succeeds in this instant subjective complaint.

5. The appeal of this appraiser is allowed in the above conditions.

An order spoken in an open court on 5^then December 2024