9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee are devoid of merits without supporting evidences. - ITA No. 2356/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2022 - Ms. Annapurna Gupta , Accountant Member And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar , Judicial Member Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri V. K. Singh , Sr. D. R. ORDER PER : T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad, as against the Assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacturing of packing materials and trading in cloths/cotton fabrics. The assessee filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 admitting Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. 2.1. After verification of account, the Assessing Officer found the assessee obtained unsecured loan of Rs. 5,49,28,568/- as against the previous year s loan o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer as well as Rejoinder from the assessee. After considering the same, the Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: 2.10. I have gone through the above facts of the case carefully. In order to discharge the burden cast upon the appellant u/s. 68 of the IT Act, the appellant is required to prove three things (i) the identity of the shareholders, (ii) the genuineness of the transaction, and (iii) the creditworthiness of the shareholders. The assessing officer stated that in some of the cases, the assesses has filed the copy of return of income only but not filed other details to verify the genuineness of unsecured loans from these parties. In view of the above discussion and Remand Report, it is observed that huge amount of loans were given by Director Shri Ganpatraj Salecha ofRs. 1,42,58,027/- and Deepak Ganpatraj Salecha of Rs.57,37,057/- where Liladevi Salecha wife of Ganpatraj Salecha given loan of Rs.38,97,539/-, Neelam D. Salecha wife of Deepak Salecha given loan of Rs.5,50,000/-, Mamta Bafna daughter of Ganpatraj Salecha given loan of Rs. 1,18,060/- and Shri Rajesh M Bafna son in law of Ganpatraj Salecha given loan of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the case of compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere details of applicants were not produced. The Hon'ble Madras High court in the case of B.R. Petrochem (P) Ltd Vs ITO [2017] 81 taxmann.com 424 has held that where assessee received share capital from various contributors, in view of fact that those contributors were persons of insignificant means and their creditworthiness to have made contributions had not been established, impugned addition made by authorities below in respect of amount in question under section 68 was to be confirmed. The Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of PC/7 Vs Bikram Singh[2017] 85 taxmann.com 104has held as under : Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Loan transactions) - Assessment year 2011-12 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer made addition to assessee's income under section 68 in respect of loans /advances received from eight persons, on ground that assessee was unable to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of said persons and transactions - Tribunal set aside additions in respect of four creditors - It was noted that none of those four individuals had financial strength to lend such huge sums of money to assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order that the unsecured loans are also an accommodative entry. Appellant has failed to explain source of credits in their bank accounts except the loan amount of Rs.65,94,000/- in the case of Ganpatraj Salecha, and loan amount of Rs.11,20,000/- in the case of Deepak Salceha, which were found genuine by the AO. Therefore, the AO is directed to recompute the addition of interest. The related grounds of the appellant are partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Ld CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,93,83,674/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income tax Act by not appreciating that the appellant had discharged the primary onus u/s 68 and established nature and source of unsecured loans from directors and relatives. The addition made by AO without discharging onus that shifted on him and without application of mind ought to be deleted in toto. It be deleted now. 2. The Ld CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in not appreciating that majority of unsecured loans were from persons who also lent in earlier years and when repeatedly the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, with the available material on record and with the assistance of the Ld. D.R. we proceed with this appeal. 6. The Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted that ld. CIT(A) after calling for the Remand Report given appropriate relief to the assessee and also deleted interest portion on the part of unsecured loans proved to be genuine by the assessee. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) s order is a justifiable which does not require any interference and requested to dismiss the assessee appeal. 7. We have gone through the materials on record and no Paper Book is being filed in the above case. It is seen from record that the unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 2.83 Crores which were already existing from the previous assessment year from the same parties. However the assessee is silent about the confirmations, bank details, Return of Income and mode of payment of the loan transactions. During the appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) called for a Remand Report and given a relief of Rs. 65,94,000/- in the case of Ganpatraj C. Salecha and Rs. 11,20,000/- in the case of Deepak G. Salecha which were found to be genuine by the Assessing Officer. The remaining balance of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
