9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n controverted by the ld DR before us. Hence we hold that the entire addition made by the ld AO and confirmed by the ld CITA, merely based on the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain (third party) (which also stood subsequently retracted by him by way of an independent affidavit), deserve to be deleted on this count itself. No other corroborative evidence was brought on record by the revenue to even remotely suggest that the loan transactions carried out by the assessee with the aforesaid 5 loan creditors to be ingenuine. As assessee had duly discharged its onus by submitting all the relevant details (as listed supra) that are available with it before the ld AO. All these documents clearly prove the identity of the loan creditors, cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-26/IT-10265/2016-17 dated 12/12/2019 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 31/03/2016 by the ld. Income Tax Officer 28(2)(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The Ground No.1 raised by the assessee was stated to be not pressed by the ld AR at the time of hearing. The same is reckoned as a statement made from the Bar and hence the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The Ground Nos. 2 3 raised by the assessee are challenging the action of the ld CITA upholding the addition made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of loans receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss. 3.2. We find that the assessee had received unsecured loans during the year under consideration from the following parties for the purpose of its business, apart from other parties together with the details of interest paid to these parties are as under:- Name of the Loan Creditor Loan Amount Interest Amount Sumukh Commercial Pvt Ltd 50,00,000 4,81,667 Olive Overseas Pvt Ltd 1,00,00,000 10,21,667 Josh Trading Co Pvt Ltd 1,00,00,000 9,01,667 Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so pointed out to the ld AO that Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had retracted his statement subsequently on 15.5.2014 by way of an affidavit filed before the income tax department. The assessee filed a copy of the said affidavit before the ld AO. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the sole basis for proposal for addition u/s 68 of the Act is only statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain , which stood subsequently retracted by him. We find that the assessee from its part, had duly discharged its onus, by furnishing the following documents before the ld AO for all the 5 loan creditors:- a) Confirmation letter from the companies (loan creditors) duly confirming the amount of loan given by them. b) Master data of the companies (loan creditors) extract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid on such loans amounting to ₹ 39,70,001/- was sought to be disallowed by the ld AO in the assessment. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CITA. 3.7. From the perusal of the assessment order, we find that the ld AO had given more emphasis in the entire assessment order to discuss the modus operandi adopted by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and his group which had been unearthed during the search action carried out on him on 1.10.2013. We find that the assessee had submitted before the ld AO that nowhere in the statements of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain or his accomplices, the name of the assessee LLP had been mentioned. This fact has not been controverted by the ld DR before us. Moreover, the assessee had also sought for cross-exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld AO on those documents. We hold that once all the relevant documents are submitted by the assessee regarding the loan creditors together with the latest addresses available with it supported by confirmations from them, the onus cast on the assessee u/s 68 of the Act stands duly discharged and no addition could be made in its hands. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Orchid Industries P Ltd reported in 397 ITR 136 (Bom). We further hold that no addition could be made on mere presumption that the assessee routed its own cash in the form of unsecured loans without any concrete evidence to this effect. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon ble Juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
