9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition to objections raised before Assessing Officer, specifically stated that assessee has made the repayment of loan in subsequent year and furnished his bank statement and ledger account of lender. The Ld.CIT(A) instead of getting the fact verified either by himself or from AO confirmed the addition without giving any finding of such submission made by assessee. We find that no adverse view, if taken by department in subsequent year on repayment of loan, is brought to our notice, therefore following the ratio of decision of Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [ 2013 (12) TMI 372 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that once the repayment was made in subsequent year no addition u/s 68 be made, against the assessee. Once, we have accepted the contention of ld AR for the assessee about repayment of loan, therefore all other submissions against this addition have become academic - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah, CA For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain the genuineness of identity and creditworthiness of lender, the Assessing Office issued notice under section 133(6) at the given address of lender, provided by assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that no reply was received from lender till passing the assessment order in response to notice issued under section 133(6). The Assessing Officer further noted that the lender-company is appearing in the list of shell company as per information available with the Department. The Assessing Officer recorded the modus operandi of entry provider and the statement recorded by the Investigation Wing against such entry provider. The Assessing Office also extracted the statement of Shri Manohar Lal Nanglia, who was allegedly controlling lender and other companies. The Assessing Officer also recorded the name of various companies managed and controlled by said Manohar Lal Nanglia. The Assessing Officer after recording such modus operandi and part of investigation carried out by Investigation Wing issued detailed show cause notice as to why such unsecured loan should not be treated as accommodation entry and commission @ 2% of such entry be not added to the income of assessee. The assessee f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntity of lender party. The case law relied by assessee is not applicable as lender company is a shell company. The Assessing Officer further recorded that bank statement of lender company shows that before showing cheque, the investor company has received money on the same date and transferred to the bank account of assessee. The lender made investment in a distant and unrelated entity. The Assessing Officer treated the unsecured loan of Rs. 25.00 lakhs as unexplained credit and made addition under section 68 and also added @ 2% commission and further disallowed the interest expenses of Rs. 57,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the addition made in the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed statement of facts and written submission. The submission of assessee was recorded in para-4 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld.CIT(A) assessee reiterated all its contention as submitted before Assessing Officer. In its reply dated 27.12.2017, thus all such submissions are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. In addition, the assessee submitted that the loan was repaid in subsequent year and evidence in the form of bank statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AR for the assessee submits that even if the case of Assessing Officer is believed, the Assessing Officer has given the list of various companies allegedly controlled by Manohar Lal Nanglia and the name of lender company is no nowhere mentioned of such name. All such names who were allegedly disclosed by Manohar Lal Nanglia mentioned at page-8 of the assessment order, the name of lender company is missing in such list. The Ld.AR for the assessee submits that assessee furnished complete details of lender including PAN, address, ITR and bank statement confirmation of the lender. No investigation or fact was carried out by Assessing Officer. The assessee discharged its onus and once the assessee discharged its onus, the onus shifted to Assessing Officer to disprove the evidences furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order recorded that notice issued under section 133(6) was duly served. And it is not the case of Assessing Officer that the said party was not available on the given address. Filing of reply by the lender party is not under the control of assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the loan was repaid in subsequent financial year an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... modation entry and assessee is being a beneficial of such accommodation entry, who has used lender as conceived to facilitate such accommodation entry. The accommodation was obtained on payment of commission and transaction of loan is not genuine. The ld DR for revenue prayed for dismissal of appeal. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by assessee in his written submission. We find that Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order solely relied on the report of Investigation Wing and the statement of Manohar Lal Nanglia. We further find that in reply to show cause notice, the assessee while filing its reply dated 27.12.2017 prayed for supply of material relied by Assessing Officer including the statement of Manohar Lal Nanglia and report of investigation wing. Admittedly no such material was provided to assessee. There was no such finding of Assessing Officer that required details were provided to assessee. We find that assessee in response to show cause notice furnished confirmation of lender s PAN, bank statement, ITR with co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
