2023 (4) TMI 534 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 read with Section 115BB - loan received unexplained - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has shown in its books that it had borrowed unsecured loan from Mr. Vijaya Kumar Gulati who had sourced the said loan out of borrowings from IIFL. There is no clear factual finding in this regard. It is a fact that loan sanction letter together with the repayment schedule from IIFL was placed on record before the Ld. AO. Due to continuous absence of the assessee before us, we are unable to get the suitable assistance in this regard to ascertain the factual situation. Fact of borrowings made from IIFL and the fact of loan sanction letter being placed on record before the Ld. AO is not disputed by the Revenue before us, considering all we deem it fit to appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law - Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of addition made under section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in relation to a loan received by the assessee.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Addition made under section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act

The appeal was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2014-15, challenging the addition of Rs.9,30,00,000 made under section 68 of the Act. The assessee argued that the addition was arbitrary and unjust as there was no contrary evidence regarding the source of the loan received from India Infoline Finance Ltd. The assessee contended that the loan was sourced through Mr. Vijaya Gulati, one of the directors of the company, and provided various documents to support this claim. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) upheld the addition as unexplained cash credit.

Decision: The Tribunal noted that there was no clear factual finding regarding the loan sourced from IIFL and the repayment schedule placed before the AO. Due to the continuous absence of the assessee, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee to furnish any fresh evidence in support of its contentions and provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of the addition made under section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act was remanded back to the AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with the law.

Judgment Highlight:
Separate judgment delivered by the Tribunal remanding the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.