9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of genuine loan taken by the party from another company M/s. Moderate Credit Corp. Ltd. and treat as bogus accommodation entry. Therefore the addition made cash introduction to the bank account of M/s. Moderate Credit Corp. Ltd. before issuing cheque or no such other transaction however happened with that company. Hence, the genuine transaction made by the assessee company cannot be treated as a sham transaction. It of the opinion that this is a genuine loan transaction which has been repaid by the AO ₹ 50 lacs which was rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) which does not need any interference on my part, hence, uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Also find that Ld. CIT(A) further observed in his impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 despite of having information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has received accommodation entries worth of ₹ 50,00,000/-? 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 3. The ground of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forgo any ground(s) of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. The grounds raised by the Assessee in the Cross Objection reads as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order passed by the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 16.5.2014 deleted the addition and made the addition of ₹ 3,50,000/- on account of estimated interest paid and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Against the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal and the Assessee has filed the Cross Objection before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. It was submitted by the learned Sr. DR that the AO has rightly assessed the income at ₹ 34,84,168/- and rightly made the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. He further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by cheque no. 230415 dated 28.04.2007 of ₹ 45 lacs and cheque no. 530345 dated 03.05.2007 of ₹ 5 lacs. Thus the loan was repaid 3 years before the date of statement taken by investigation wing of the department from the CA Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta in 2010. Therefore, the department should not take a wrong view of genuine loan taken by the party from another company M/s. Moderate Credit Corp. Ltd. and treat as bogus accommodation entry. The ARs also further argued that there is no cheques. Hence, it cannot be treated as bogus accommodation entry. Therefore the addition made cash introduction to the bank account of M/s. Moderate Credit Corp. Ltd. before issuing cheque or no such other transaction however happened with that company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne loan taken by assessee from Moderate Credit Crop Ltd. by cheque no. 743431 743430 dated 18.08.2015 of ₹ 25 lacs each. The loan was repaid by cheque no. 230415 dated 28.04.2007 of ₹ 45 lacs and cheque no. 530345 dated 03.05.2007 of ₹ 5 lacs. Thus the loan was repaid 3 years before the date of statement taken by Investigation Wing of the Department from the CA Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta in 2010. Therefore, the department should not take a wrong view of genuine loan taken by the party from another company M/s. Moderate Credit Corp. Ltd. and treat as bogus accommodation entry. Therefore the addition made cash introduction to the bank account of M/s. Moderate Credit Corp. Ltd. before issuing cheque or no such other transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
