9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest. The loan, apparently, could be repaid after four years in three annual installments, albeit on mutually agreed terms. Since the lender was a private limited company, it was perhaps open to the appellant/assessee i.e., the borrower, to produce the erstwhile directors to establish the genuineness of the loan agreement. None of these steps were taken by the appellant/assessee. Appellant/assessee, on the other hand, tried to shift the onus onto the respondent/revenue. The submission that the AO should have issued notices to the lender i.e., GWPL does not impress us. The reason being that if the appellant/assessee was unable to produce the requisite material since the lender i.e., GWPL had been struck off from the Register of Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity named Gee Wire Pvt. Ltd [in short GWPL ]. 5. In support of this plea, a loan agreement was produced. A perusal of the loan agreement shows that it was printed on the letterhead of the appellant/assessee. 5.1 Facially, the loan agreement is titled unsecured term loan agreement . The said loan agreement is dated 01.07.2017. Significantly, the purpose of the loan appears to be the remission of liabilities against fixed assets/capital goods and not for the routine operational requirements of the appellant/assessee. It appears that this purpose has been incorporated with a strategic plan in mind, which is, if the loan is not to be repaid for any eventuality, i.e., if there is remission of liability, it would then not be treated, in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.2 It is also the submission of Mr Jhamba that it was well within the powers of the AO to issue requisite notices and collect necessary information with regard to the lender, i.e., GWPL. 8. It is, thus, the submission of Mr Jhamba that since there was remission of liability, the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act came into play, which is an aspect that was not fully appreciated by the statutory authorities. 9. Mr Vipul Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, submits that no interference was called for with the impugned order. It was contended by Mr Agarwal that the appellant/assessee had failed to discharge its onus as regards the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
