9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed challenging the reopening u/s. 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which is not pressed and, therefore, stands dismissed. 3. Now coming to the revenue's appeal which is time barred by three days for which condonation petition has been filed. On perusal of the same and since no objection has been raised on behalf of the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. In this appeal, revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,76,16,000/-. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company which is engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities and filed the return of income for AY 2006-07 on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the lender/creditor M/s. BMPL is a sister concern of the assessee company and substantial shares of both the companies are held by family/friends of Mr. Arun Dalmia who is the group Chairman. On a query from the bench as to why the assessee failed to produce the documents when called upon by the AO to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction before the AO, the Ld. AR pointed out that there was a CBI search dated 24.03.2010 and the entire documents were in the custody of the CBI and, therefore, the assessee could not produce the documents relating to M/s. BMPL for the assessment year under consideration and, therefore, the AO drew adverse inference against the assessee. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. However, it was declared as a fictitious entity in AY 2010-11 by the AO which was challenged by M/s. BMPL by filing an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order on 04.02.2015 for AY 2010-11 wherein he has held that M/s. BMPL is not a bogus entity and further he observed that there is no material on record to support the adverse finding given by the AO. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A), has held that the business carried on by M/s. BMPL cannot be considered as bogus. It was also brought to our notice that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata in respect of M/s. BMPL has been accepted by the Department by not preferring an appeal before the Tribunal. For supporting the said contention, he drew our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eness of the loan creditor. For taking such a view we rely on the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in S. K. Bothra & Sons HUF Vs. ITO 347 ITR 347 (Cal). The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Crystal Network (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Cal) has observed that the creditors cannot be disbelieved merely because they did not respond to summons when all other documents to substantiate the loan transaction has been filed before the assessing authority. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Dataware (P) Ltd. ITA No. 263 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011 has held that in case if the AO has doubt regarding the creditworthiness of the loan creditor, then the AO in turn had to seek report from the AO of the loan creditor and thereafter only draw adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
