9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erve and surplus of Rs. 11.94 crores. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of unsecured loan of Rs. 9.50 lacs. Addition of alleged commission paid made u/s 69C is also deleted. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 270/Srt/2022 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2023 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Richa Tosniwal, AR For the Department : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 18/07/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice and validity of reopening. Considering the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, the grounds No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Now adverting to the facts leading of main addition in the assessment order. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information that a search operation was carried out on entry provider at Kolkata namely Shri Anand Kumar Sharma. His statement was recorded, who disclosed about managing of various entities for providing accommodation entry. The assessee is one of the beneficiary of such accommodation entry from the list of beneficiary form various entity managed by Anand Kumar. It was found that the assessee has received an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be treated as a paper company. Shri Anand Kumar Sharma is nowhere stated that he has given unsecured loan to the assessee. The reply of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer after referring the report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata held that the assessee failed to prove that Investor Company is not an entry provider and their creditworthiness. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 9.50 lacs under Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of commission @ 2% of transaction value thereby added Rs. 19,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer and support his case. The assessee introduced bogus claim in its books of account by routing unaccounted income through tax evasion scheme. The evidence of the transaction itself found to be served as smoke screen to cover up the true nature of transaction. The assessee arranged transaction to introduce unaccounted income through entry provider and upheld the addition of Section 68 as well as 69C of the Act. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. I have heard the submissions of ld. AR of the assessee and the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the addition is based on third party information. The Assessing Officer has not made any independent invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj). 8. On the addition of unexplained expenditure i.e. alleged commission of Rs. 19,000/-, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is no evidence on record that the assessee has made any commission rather the assessee has fully discharged his onus and proved that the loan was genuine which was paid and repaid through banking channel and has been accepted by not taking any adverse view in A.Y. 2013-14. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that neither the addition under Section 68 of Rs. 9.50 lacs nor the addition on account of alleged commission payment is sustainable. The ld. AR of the assessee p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re me, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that impugned loan was repaid in A.Y. 2012-13 through banking channel. The bank statement showing repayment is also placed on record. I have verified that impugned loan was repaid on 29/03/2013. I also noted that no adverse view was taken by the department against repayment of loan, thus it was accepted. Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsanghji (supra) held that where department has accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year no addition was to be made in the current year on account of cash credit. I further noted that during the assessment, the assessee furnished complete detail of loan transaction by furnishing, name, address, PAN, account confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
