9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of the aforementioned sister concern of the assessee company wherein identical facts were involved, had upheld the order of the CIT(A) and therein concluded that the A.O in the absence of the corroborative evidence was not justified in treating the loans received by the assessee before them as unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68. CIT(A) after deliberating at length on the issue under consideration had rightly concluded that as the assessee had discharged the onus that was cast upon it under Sec.68 therefore, the A.O was not justified in treating the loans received from the aforementioned parties as unexplained cash credits under Sec.68 - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.5783/Mum/2017, 5784/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2019 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Appellant by: Shri Manjunath Swami And Shri R ajesh Ojha, D.R Respondent by: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeals filed by the revenue in the case of the captioned companies viz. (i). Marathan Realty Pvt. Limited ; and (ii). M/s M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee revised its return of income on 31.03.2015, declaring its total income at Rs. Nil (after claiming loss of ₹ 25,13,21,220/-). The case of the assessee was thereafter selected for scrutiny assessment under Sec.143(2) of the Act. 3. The A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings observed, that on the basis of information that the assessee as a beneficiary had taken accommodation entries of bogus unsecured loans from various dummy concerns, survey proceedings under Sec.133A of the Act were conducted at its premises on 25.03.2014. As per the information gathered during the course of the survey proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had received unsecured loans from certain companies which were allegedly stated to be operated and controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, an infamous accommodation entry provider. It was observed by the A.O that Shri Chetan R. Shah, director of the assessee company in the course of the survey proceedings had failed to divulge details as regards the unsecured loans that were claimed to have been raised by the various entities of Marathan Group . Also, it was noticed by the A.O that Shri Chetan R. Shah had in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Falak Trading Co. P. Ltd. 17,00,000 Total 10,91,50,000 The A.O holding a conviction that the identity and creditworthiness of the aforesaid lenders and also the genuineness of the transactions had remained unproved, therefore, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why the same may not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Sec.68 of the Act. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that as it had discharged the onus that was cast upon it for proving the authenticity of the loan transactions by placing on record supporting documentary evidence viz. (i). confirmations of the lenders; (ii). copies of the returns of income for A.Y. 2013-14 of the lenders; (iii). copies of the annual audited accounts of the lenders for A.Y. 2013-14; and (iv). copies of the bank statements of the lenders from which loans were advanced by the respective lenders, therefore, no adverse inferences as regards the same was liable to be drawn. Apart therefrom, it was submitted by the assessee that the standalone statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the ld. D.R, that as assessee in the garb of unsecured loans from the concerns/companies operated and controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, an infamous accommodation entry provider, had obtained accommodation entries, therefore, the same was rightly treated by the A.O as unexplained cash credits under Sec. 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that Shri Chetan R. Shah, director of the assessee company had in the course of the survey proceedings admitted that the unsecured loans taken from the group entities which were operated and controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain were only in the nature of accommodation entries. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that Sh. Chetan R. Shah in the course of the survey proceedings also could not divulge the basic details about the parties from whom unsecured loans had been raised by the various concerns of Marathan Group . It was the claim of the ld. D.R, that as the assessee had failed to discharge the onus as regards proving the authenticity of the aforesaid loan transactions, therefore, the same had justifiably been characterised by the A.O as unexplained cash credits under Sec. 68 of the Act. The ld. D.R placed heavy reliance on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial. As regards the reliance placed by the A.O on the fact that Shri Chetan R. Shah, director of the assessee company had in his statement recorded in the course of the survey proceedings admitted that the unsecured loans raised by the various concerns of Marathan Group were only in the nature of accommodation entries, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the same was factually incorrect, therefore, the same was not acted upon by the assessee company while filing its return of income. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the fact that Sh. Chetan R. Shah in the course of the survey proceedings was not in a stable state of mind could safely be gathered from the observation of the A.O that the said person at the relevant point of time could not even recollect the details of the lenders from whom unsecured loans had been raised by the assessee and its group entities. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the statement of Sh. Chetan R. Shah that was recorded during the course of the survey proceeding had thereafter been retracted by him, therefore, no adverse inferences as regards the authenticity of the loan transactions could have been drawn by the A.O de hors any materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order which revealed that the assessee had specifically requested for cross-examination of Shri Praveen K. Jain. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R, that it is neither the case of the revenue that Sh. Praveen Kumar Jain had in his statement alleged that he had provided any accommodation entries to the assessee, nor any material evidencing the same had either surfaced during the course of the search proceedings that were conducted on the said person or was found in the course of the survey conducted on the assessee. Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that even otherwise as Shri Praveen K. Jain had filed an Affidavit and therein withdrawn his statement that he was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries, therefore, even the said standalone basis for drawing of adverse inference as regards the authenticity of loan transactions under consideration also did no more survive. In order to fortify the authenticity of the loan transactions under consideration, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had paid interest to the lenders after deduction of tax at source as per mandate of law. Also, it was submitted by him that the loans were repaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso rightly deleted by the CIT(A). In order to drive home his contention that when the onus cast upon the assessee to prove the authenticity of the loan transactions had been discharged, then the same in the absence of any material proving to the contrary cannot be treated as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act, reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the following judicial pronouncements (i) DCIT Vs. Manba Finance Ltd. (ITA No.1448, 1449 1467/Mum/2017, dated 05.10.2018 (Mum); (ii) DCIT Vs. Shreedham Builders (ITA No. 5589/Mum/2017, dated 22.06.2018) (Mum); (iii) DCIT Vs. Jainam Investments (ITA No. 6099/Mum/2016, dated 10.08.2018); (iv) DCIT Vs. Bairagra Builders Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.4691 4692/Mum/2015, dated 14.09.2017; (v). ITO Vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ld. (2012) 20 taxman.com153 (Mum); (vi). ACIT Vs. Shree A.S. Motiwala (2019), TIOL 676 (Mum); (vii). ITO Vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd. (2015) 61 taxman.com 132 (Del); (viii). CIT Vs. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom); (ix). PCIT Vs. M/s Skylak Build (ITA No.616/Mum/2016, dated 24.10.2018) (Bom); and (x) M/s Gladiolus Properties and Inc. Pvt. ltd. (ITA No. 2924/Mum/2017, dated 16.05.2016. As regards t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000 3. Casper Enterprises P. Ltd. 1,07,50,000 4. Olive Overseas P. Ltd. 1,77,00,000 5. Pragati Gems P. Ltd. 2,25,00,000 6. Sumukh Commercial P. Ltd. 1,15,00,000 7. Viraj Mercantile P. Ltd. 2,00,00,000 8. Lunkad Textile P. Ltd. 50,00,000 9. Falak Trading Co. P. Ltd. 17,00,000 Total 10,91,50,000 On a perusal of the assessment orders, we find, that the A.O had drawn adverse inferences as regards the authenticity of the loans raised by the assessee from the aforementioned parties, for the reason, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies of the returns of income for A.Y. 2013-14 of the lender parties; (iii) copies of the annual audited accounts for A.Y. 2013-14 of the lender parties; and (iv) copy of the bank statements of the lender parties from where the loans were advanced to the assessee company. Accordingly, the assessee in discharge of the primary onus that was cast upon it to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transactions had placed on record the aforesaid documentary evidence. It has been the claim of the assessee before the CIT(A) that as all the necessary requisite details in order to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and also the genuineness of the loan transactions were placed on record, therefore, the A.O without rebutting the said documentary evidence and placing on record any material proving to the contrary was not justified in summarily dislodging the claim of the assessee as regards the authenticity of the loans that were raised by it from the aforementioned parties. 8. We shall in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts deliberate on the observations of the lower authorities. We shall first advert to the statement of Shri Chetan R. Shah, director o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ec.133A, and as to whether the same on a standalone basis can justify addition in the hands of an assessee, or not. A perusal of Sec.133A(3)(iii) of the Act which vests power with an Income Tax Authority to record the statement of any person in the course of survey proceedings, reads as under: (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. Accordingly, it is evident that an Income Tax Authority in the course of the survey proceedings conducted under Sec.133A can record the statement of any person which could be useful or relevant to any proceeding under the Act. However, we find that the phraseology of Sec.133A(3)(iii) is entirely different as in comparison to provisions of Sec.132(4) of the Act, wherein the authorized officer can examine anybody on Oath , and such statement may be used as evidence in any proceedings under the Act. As the statement recorded under Sec. 133A(3)(iii) of the Act is not recorded on oath, therefore, as had consistently been held by various courts the same has no evidentiary value in absence of any corroborative evidence. In sum and substance, the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand, we find that such a power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorised officer only under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act in the course of any search or seizure. Thus, the Income-tax Act, whenever it thought fit and necessary to confer such power to examine a person on oath, the same has been expressly provided whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the Income-tax Act it is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorised to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law. Therefore, there is much farce in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the statement elicited during the survey operation has no evidentiary value and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC), while upholding the view of the Hon ble High Court of Madras, had held, that as a statement recorded in the course of the survey proceedings does not carry any evidentiary value, therefore, no addition is sustainable on the strength of the said statement. A similar view had also been taken by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del). In the aforementioned case, it was observed by the Hon ble High Court that a statement of an assessee to have evidentiary value should have been recorded on oath. It was observed by the High Court that though an admission was an extremely important piece of evidence, it could not be said to be conclusive and it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. In the backdrop of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can safely be concluded that the statement recorded during the course of the survey proceedings has no evidentiary value and the same can only be used for corroborative purposes for deciding an issue in the course of the assessment proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a standalone basis could not have justified drawing of adverse inferences as regards the authenticity of the loan transactions, specifically when the assessee had declined to act upon the same and had placed on record supporting documentary evidence to prove the authenticity of the said transactions. In fact, we find that the CBDT in its letter No. F.No.286/2/2003, IT (Inv-II), dated 10.03.2003 had observed that instances have come to its notice that in certain cases the assesses were forced to confess undisclosed income in the course of the search seizure and survey operations. It was noticed by the Board that as such baseless disclosures would be divorced from the actual facts and would not be backed by any credible evidence, therefore, the assesses at the time of filing their returns of income would retract from the same. Accordingly, the Board taking cognizance of the said ground realities had in its aforesaid circular emphasised that the officials in the course of the search seizure proceedings and survey operations should focus and concentrate on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggregating to ₹ 10,91,50,000/- as genuine, despite the fact that the said loans were received from dummy companies/entities managed and controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, an infamous accommodation entry provider. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, search and seizure action was conducted on Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, an infamous accommodation entry provider. As claimed by the revenue, Shri. Praveen Kumar Jain had in his statement recorded under Sec.132(4) admitted before the investigation wing that he was controlling and operating various dummy concerns/companies through which he had provided accommodation entries to various persons. As observed by us hereinabove, it is a fact borne from the orders of the lower authorities that Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had retracted from his aforesaid statement by filing an affidavit alleging that as the search operations had continued at length for 9 days, therefore, it had taken a toll on his mental faculties. Be that as it may, we find that it is not the case of the revenue before us that the aforesaid person had at any stage in his statement recorded during course of the search proceedings ever alleged that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, it can safely be gathered that the statement recorded in the course of the search proceedings under Sec.132(4) may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act. It is thus abundantly clear that the A.O is vested with a discretion to use a statement recorded under Sec.132(4) as an evidence in the course of any proceedings under the Income Tax Act. In our considered view, the CIT(A) has rightly concluded that the word may clearly suggests that the statement recorded under Sec. 132(4) may therein be rebutted subsequently if the assessee is able to prove with documentary evidence that the facts earlier stated were not correct. In fact, we are persuaded to subscribe to the view of the CIT(A) that though a statement recorded under oath is an important piece of evidence, however, addition/disallowance cannot be made solely on the basis of such statement in the absence of any corroborative evidence supporting the same. As a matter of fact, in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radesh in the case of CIT Vs. Naresh K. Aggarwal (2014) 369 ITR 171 (AP). In the said case, it was observed by the Hon ble High Court that a statement recorded under sub-section (4) of Sec.132 shall be treated as a piece of evidence in the proceedings under the Act, as long as the said statement is not retracted. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon ble High Court Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del). In the aforementioned case, it was observed by the Hon ble High Court that a retracted statement under Sec.132(4) of the Act would require some corroborative material for the A.O to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), had observed, that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was observed by the Hon ble Apex Court that it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. Relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court, we find, that a coordinate bench of the Tribunal viz. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which would substantiate that the assessee had obtained any accommodation entries in the garb of unsecured loans from the aforementioned 9 companies, it was to be so presumed merely on the basis of the aforesaid standalone statement (which too had been retracted) of the aforementioned person viz. Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. We find that though search proceedings under Sec.132 were conducted in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, however, there is nothing discernible from the orders of the lower authorities which would reveal that any material evidencing that the assessee as a beneficiary had obtained accommodation entries from the said person had surfaced or was unearthed during the course of the said proceedings. Also as observed by us hereinabove, there is nothing discernible from the records which would reveal that the aforesaid person had ever alleged that he had provided any accommodation entries to the assessee company. We also cannot remain oblivious of the fact that in the absence of any corroborative evidence the statement of the aforementioned third party viz. Shri Praveen K. Jain could not be used in isolation for drawing of adverse inferences in the hands of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oborative material for drawing of adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee. In fact, we find that there is no whisper in the assessment order as to how and on what basis the A.O had sought to dislodge the authenticity of the aforesaid loan transactions by referring to the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid deliberations we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) had rightly concluded that in the absence of any corroborative material the A.O could not have proceeded with and made additions on the basis of the retracted statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. 11. We shall now advert to the material which had been placed on record by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transactions under consideration. Also, we shall deliberate upon the observations of the A.O on the basis of which he had declined to accept his aforesaid claim. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, the assessee in order to drive home its claim that it had raised genuine loans from the aforementioned 9 parties had placed on record supporting documentary evidence v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of relevant pages of bank statement of them and itself to establish that the transactions were carried out through proper banking channel. f. M/s Sumukh Commercial P Ltd- The appellant has submitted the copy of confirmation letter for relevant assessment year, copy of acknowledgement of return of income of relevant assessment year, copy of annual audited accounts of relevant assessment year, copy of relevant pages of bank statement of them and itself to establish that the transactions were carried out through proper banking channel. g. M/s Viraj Mercantile P. Ltd. The appellant has submitted the copy of confirmation letter for relevant assessment year, copy of acknowledgement of return of income of relevant assessment year, copy of annual audited accounts of relevant assessment year, copy of relevant pages of bank statement of them and itself to establish that the transactions were carried out through proper banking channel. h. M/s Lunkad Textile P Ltd- The appellant has submitted the copy of confirmation letter for relevant assessment year, copy of acknowledgement of. return of income of relevant assessment year, copy of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved by us hereinabove, the A.O had failed to rebut the material which was placed on record by the assessee to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders, and also the genuineness of the transaction under consideration. In fact, we find that the assessee had been able to substantially prove the authenticity of the loan transactions on the basis of the documentary evidence placed on record by him. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O had not even sought to verify the authenticity of the aforesaid loan transactions by issuing any notices under Sec.133(6) of the Act. In our considered view, in case the A.O would had any doubts as regards either the identity and creditworthiness of the aforesaid lenders or the genuineness of the loan transactions, then he would have made necessary verifications by either summoning the details in exercise of the powers vested with him under Sec.133(6) or directing the assessee to furnish further documentary evidence. However, we find that the A.O neither carried out any verifications on his own nor directed the assessee to clarify any further aspects pertaining to the authenticity of the loan transactions under consideration. As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). In the aforesaid case, the Hon ble High court taking cognizance of the subsequent development of repayment of the loans by the assessee to the lenders, had observed that the said fact proved the authenticity of the loan transactions. 12. We shall now advert to the reliance placed by the revenue on the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Pavankumar M. Sanghvi Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2447/Ahd/2016) (Ahd). It is the claim of the assessee that involving identical facts, the tribunal in the aforementioned case had concluded that genuineness of loan transactions cannot be established merely on the basis of documents filed by the assessee and further probe is required to be carried out for arriving at the actual facts. We have perused the aforesaid order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad, and are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the aforesaid claim of the revenue. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the same is distinguishable on facts. As is discernible from the said order, it was observed by the Tribunal that a perusal of the Bank account of the lender party viz. M/s Natasha Enterprises revealed that after the loan of ₹ 10,00,000/- was advanced to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the authenticity of the loan transactions, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the A.O to have disproved the said claim of the assessee by placing on record documentary evidence proving to the contrary. However, as the A.O in the case before us had failed to dislodge the documentary evidence placed on record by the assessee in support of its claim as regards the authenticity of the loan transactions, and had only taken recourse to certain general observations, without specifically referring to the material placed on record by the assessee, we are afraid that he by so doing had absolutely failed to discharge the onus as was shifted upon him to disprove the authenticity of the loan transactions under consideration. In fact, we find that the A.O instead of placing on record any documentary evidence which would disprove the authenticity of the loan transactions under consideration, had focussed primarily on the facts and the modus operandi of functioning of Shri. Praveen Kumar Jain as had emerged in the course of the search proceedings conducted on him. We are afraid that the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards the authenticity of the loan transactions under consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocumentary evidence to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transactions viz. confirmation letters, bank statements, financial statements of the lender parties, and thus had discharged the onus that was cast upon it. It was further observed by the Tribunal that no adverse inferences could have been drawn by the A.O without making any inquiry by issuing notices under Sec. 133(6) or summons under Sec. 131 of the Act. As regards the admission of the undisclosed income by the director of the assessee company in his statement recorded in the course of the survey proceedings, it was observed by the Tribunal that a disclosure obtained in the course of survey de hors corroborative evidence cannot be a conclusive proof for making an addition in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal on the basis of his aforesaid observations had in the case of the aforementioned sister concern of the assessee company wherein identical facts were involved, had upheld the order of the CIT(A) and therein concluded that the A.O in the absence of the corroborative evidence was not justified in treating the loans received by the assessee before them as unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Praveen Kumar Jam, and admitted by Shri Chetan C Shah, the Director of the assessee company, as to be in the nature of the accommodation entry. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the loan of ₹ 2,64,80,000/- as genuine, ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Pavankumar M Sanghvi vs ITO I.T.A. No.2447/Ahd/2016, wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that genuineness of the transactions cannot be established merely on the basis of documentation filed by the assessee and further probe is required to ascertain whether what was apparent was real. iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the interest expenses of ₹ 19,29,244/- on the loan of ₹ 2,64,80,000/- which has been held to be in the nature of the accommodation entry and sham in the assessment order. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and the DC be restored. The appellant craves to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary. 17. Br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsecured loans of ₹ 2,64,80,000/- raised from the aforementioned concerns which were allegedly stated to be controlled and operated by Shri Praveen K. Jain, as its income in its return of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the A.O treated the aforesaid loans as unexplained cash credits under Sec.68 and made an addition of ₹ 2,64,80,000/-. Apart therefrom, the A.O also disallowed the interest expenses of ₹ 19,29,244/- claimed by the assessee to have been paid to the aforementioned lender parties. 19. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings had duly discharged the onus that was cast upon it to prove the authenticity of the loan transactions under consideration. Also, it was observed by him, that the A.O was in error in drawing adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee by relying on the standalone statement of Shri Praveen K. Jain, despite the fact that the same had been retracted by him by filing an affidavit . Accordingly, the CIT(A) was of the view that the additions made by the A.O without placing on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
