9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 897 - AT - Income TaxUnsecured loan receipts u/s 68 - assessee company was found to provide the layer of two companies before actually transferring it back to Maitri group and retained commission/charge - HELD THAT - Assessee has given a finding that assessee is a registered NBFC and the assessee had borrowed money from the 03 companies and disbursed the borrowed money which is the activity undertaken by the assessee in the normal course of business being a NBFC. A.O. held that difference between the amount received as loan from Maitri Group aggregating to Rs.103,34,91,422/- and the amount advanced amounting to Rs.100,77,66,969/- to M/s. Shrill Investment Ltd., as facilitation fee and brought it to tax. We find the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has also noted that A.O. has not pointed to any provisions of Income Tax Act under which the aforesaid amount could have been treated as income. We find that Ld. CIT(A) by a well reasoned order deleted the addition made by A.O. Before us, Revenue has not pointed any fallacy in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and in such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect and thus, Ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - assessee had shown the receipt of unsecured loans - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that the transaction had taken place more than three years back i.e., in F.Y. 2014-15 and the amount was also returned back in F.Y. 2014-15 and that assessee had established the identity by furnishing the confirmation copy, audited balance sheet, copy of ITR acknowledgment, PAN and the bank statement of the lender company. The aforesaid finding of Ld. CIT(A) has not been controverted by Revenue. Further considering the fact that the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147/148 on the same issue i.e., receipt of Rs.28 lakhs, but, in the re-assessment order passed on 09.02.2022 no addition has been made. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.28 lakhs in the hands of assessee. Accordingly, Grounds of appeal No.2 of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.2,57,34,453 under section 68 of IT Act. 2. Addition of Rs.28,00,000 under section 68 of IT Act. Issue 1: Addition of Rs.2,57,34,453 under section 68 of IT Act The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs.2,57,34,453 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The A.O. observed that the assessee had received loans from certain companies and retained a portion of it before transferring the rest to another company. The A.O. concluded that the retained amount was a commission for facilitating the transfer of funds and that the assessee was used as a conduit by the Maitri Group. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, noting that the assessee, being a registered Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC), had borrowed and disbursed funds in the ordinary course of business. The CIT(A) emphasized that the A.O. did not provide any legal basis for treating the retained amount as income. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the A.O. failed to identify any provision of the Income Tax Act justifying the treatment of the retained amount as income. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue. Issue 2: Addition of Rs.28,00,000 under section 68 of IT Act The second issue pertained to the addition of Rs.28,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The A.O. added this amount as unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee, citing lack of evidence regarding the genuineness of the transaction with Goldmine Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. noted discrepancies in the lender company's details and lack of tangible assets in its balance sheet. However, the CIT(A) reversed this decision, highlighting that the transaction occurred three years prior, the loan was repaid in the same financial year, and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the transaction's authenticity. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the Revenue had not challenged the CIT(A)'s findings. Additionally, the ITAT noted that in a reassessment order, no addition was made regarding the same transaction. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue as well. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in both issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and ruling in favor of the assessee.
|
