9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be sustained. Since the contention of the assessee is that there was no actual payment but there was only a mere book entry and since this is sought to be proved with the help of the additional evidence and since such evidence has not been examined by the AO, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue for fresh consideration in the light of the additional evidence produced by the assessee before the Tribunal. Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 523/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2021 - N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Chandra Poojari, Member (A) For the Appellant : S. Ramasubramanian, CA For the Respondents : Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) ORDER N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of primus loan. The assessee explained before the AO that a company by name Primus Retail Private Limited (PRPL) owed amount to KHPL. PRPL approached the assessee to take over the liability of PRPL to KHPL. According to the assessee, there was inter corporate loan agreement dated 10.03.2009 under which KHPL provided short term inter corporate loan of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- to PRPL. PRPL repaid ₹ 30,00,000/- to KHPL as on 26.05.2009. In respect of remaining sum of ₹ 2,70,000/-, interest accrued to the extent of ₹ 24,57,825/- and the total sum payable by PRPL to KHPL was a sum of ₹ 2,94,57,825/-. According to the assessee, KHPL, PRPL and the assessee entered into an triparted agreement dated 02.02.2010 and as per the te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of PRPL and therefore the sum which has already been paid cannot be treated as a share application by the assessee. The AO therefore treated the sum of ₹ 2,94,57,825/- as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. 6. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO over the very same reasons assigned by the AO. The relevant observations of the CIT(A) in this regard were as follows: 5.12 The submissions of the appellant have duly been considered. In this regard it is important to peruse the tripartite agreement between the appellant (IAAL), KHPL and PRPL. The relevant part of the same is reproduced as follows: IAAL paid, by this day. on behalf of PRPL, a sum of ₹ 2,94,57,825/- (Rupees Two Cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted the assessee neither paid loan amount to KHPL nor received any share application money from KHPL. Our attention was drawn to an affidavit dated 11.12.2020 of Mr. Vinod Kumar, the director of KHPL affirming that the purpose of the agreement is to transfer the loan liability of PTPL due to KHPL to the Assessee. The objective was achieved through passing book entries and not by actual repayment of loan either by banking channel or in cash. The expression IAAL paid and KHPL acknowledges the receipt of outstanding loan in clause-2 of the agreement do not mean that actual payment has been made. It only means that the assessee has taken over the loan. This is also clear from para 4 of the Preamble of the agreement dated 02.02.2010 whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be made. 9. The assessee has filed application for admitting additional documents as additional evidence which are as follows: Ledger extract of appellant in the books of Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd. for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 Ledger extract of the appellant in the books of Kivar Holdings Pvt. Ltd. for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 Financial statements of Kivar Holdings P. Ltd. for the year ended 31st March 2010 10. The application for admission of additional evidence is supported by an affidavit of Shri. Vinod Kumar, Director of KHPL in which he has stated that there was no actual payment by the assessee to KHPL of the loan liability of PRPL. In support of the assessee's contention, the additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
