9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not pointed any fallacy in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and in such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect and thus, Ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - assessee had shown the receipt of unsecured loans - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that the transaction had taken place more than three years back i.e., in F.Y. 2014-15 and the amount was also returned back in F.Y. 2014-15 and that assessee had established the identity by furnishing the confirmation copy, audited balance sheet, copy of ITR acknowledgment, PAN and the bank statement of the lender company. The aforesaid finding of Ld. CIT(A) has not been controverted by Revenue. Further considering the fact that the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147/148 on the same issue i.e., receipt of Rs.28 lakhs, but, in the re-assessment order passed on 09.02.2022 no addition has been made. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or any other creditable evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction. It was also ignored by the Ld CIT (A) that the Inspector of this office reported no such company was existing at the given address. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 4. Ground No.1 is with respect to deleting the addition of Rs.2,57,34,453/-. 4.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that assessee has received loan aggregating to Rs.103,34,91,422/- from Maitri Group [details of which are listed at para 4.1 of the assessment order]. The A.O. noted that to verify the genuineness of the loans taken by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued at the address provided by the assessee, but the same were returned back un-served. In support of the assessee's contention that the loans are genuine, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that assessee had taken loan from the aforesaid 03 companies viz., Maitri Realtor Construction Pvt. Ltd., Maitri Suvarnasiddhi Pvt. Ltd., and West Cast Ventures India Pvt. Ltd., and these companies are under investigation by Serious Fraud I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter by applying the ratio of decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, vs., Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs., Commissioner of Income Tax [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) held Rs.2,57,34,453/- earned by the assessee as undisclosed income and made its addition. 4.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has given a finding that assessee is a registered NBFC, obtained the registration from Reserve Bank of India. He noted that A.O. has not doubted the source of funds, the fact that assessee had borrowed the funds in the ordinary course of business as NBFC. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that in the audited Balance Sheet assessee has reflected the borrowings which includes the borrowing from Maitri Group and the amount disbursed including the amount disbursed to M/s. Shrill Investment Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) has further given a finding that assessee had borrowed money and inturn advanced the same to other company in the ordinary course of business. The A/c of the borrowers and the debtors was running accounts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A.O. asked the assessee to produce the Director of the Company or any other credible evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction in the matter. A.O. noted that assessee did not produce the Director or provided any contact details of the Company or the Director. He also noted that the Inspector who visited the Office has submitted his report that no such company exists at the given address. The A.O. also noted that Goldmine Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., had not filed ROC returns since last 02 years. A.O. also noted that there was no tangible assets reflected in its balance-sheet and there was no verifiable business of the company. A.O, therefore, held that by merely filing the confirmation letter and the details of Bank A/c, the genuineness of the transaction is not proved. He, accordingly held that the unsecured loans of Rs.28 lakhs received by the assessee as 'unexplained credit' in the hands of the assessee and made the addition of Rs.28 lakhs under section 68 read with Section 115BBA of the I.T. Act, 8.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition by noting the fact that the transaction had taken plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
