9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of these company and net worth in the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A) this party has credit worthiness for giving such loan. CIT(A) has observed that the AO failed to make any independent enquiry regarding these parties. Ld. Counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing placed reliance in the case of Kamlesh Gupta [ 2021 (8) TMI 1268 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - We are in agreement with finding of the CIT(A) as the assessee has provided evidences in support of its claim but no independent enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the same. A.O. ought to have caused necessary investigation before drawing adverse inference against the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst deletion of addition of ₹ 3,03,90,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short the Act . 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee company was engaged in the business as building development of Colonies, Promoters and contractors of residential, commercial and industrial buildings. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 30/3/2015. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings called upon the assessee to explain the short term borrowings of ₹ 3,03,900,00/- from four parties namely M/s. Karamjeet Singh Company Ltd., M/s. Ros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that during the year the substantial amount was received from M/s. Karamjeet Singh Company Ltd., there is no discussion by the Assessing Officer in respect of this assessee, he submitted that the assessee duly discharged its primary onus by providing the relevant documents in support of the claim. He submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, further he reiterated the submissions as made before the Ld. CIT (A). It was contended that the assessee had provided evidences in support of its claim in the assessee Form 16, ITR of lenders, Bank Statement of Lenders, Pan details of Lenders and independent confirmation by lenders in response to notice u/s. 133(6) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition in respect of following parties:- S. No. Name of the applicants Loan amount (In Rs.) 1 Karamjeet Singh Company Ltd. 2,35,00,000/- 2 Rosemary Commercials Pvt. Ltd. 43,50,000/- 3 D.M. Trading Pvt. Ltd. 25,00,000/- 4 Dharmender Singhal 40,000/- Admittedly in respect of the party at Serial No. 1, the A.O. has not given any adverse finding. Moreover, the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(6) of the Act were duly served and replied were also filed. Further, it is stated that the correct address of M/s. Rose Mary Commercial Pvt. Ltd. was supplied and the enquiry was made at the old address. It is stated by the Ld. CIT(A) that the loan amount was taken from this party through bank route of ₹ 43,50,000/-. The turnover of these company was ₹ 7,24,27,295/- and net worth was of ₹ 8,99,93,447/- in the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A) this party has credit worthiness for giving such loan. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the Assessing Officer failed to make any independent enquiry regarding these parties. Ld. Counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
