The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. Suresh P. Makhija
High Court
08 Jun 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. Suresh P. Makhija
Date of order
08 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. Suresh P. Makhija, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.99,13,179/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being unexplained loans received by the assessee in the block period is the question raised in this appe...
Decision: In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1658 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Suresh P. Makhija..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.Subhash S. Shetty for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, JJ.
DATE : 8[th] June, 2011.
P.C. :
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.99,13,179/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being unexplained loans received by the assessee in the block period is the question raised in this appeal. The additions were made based on a fact that the confirmation of letters were not furnished by the assessee.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in para 16 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that the loans are part of regular books of account maintained by the assessee and that during the proceedings before the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal the assessee has furnished the confirmation letters from the persons from whom the loans were taken. Neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court, it is shown that the confirmation letters furnished by the assessee are not genuine.
3.In these circumstances, decision of the Tribunal based on the confirmation letters that the loan transactions are genuine, cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.