9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is close to the market rate and also duly deducted TDS. It is also observed by the CIT (A) that the assessee has repaid abovesaid borrowed loan in subsequent years. AO has conveniently ignored all these facts. It is also brought to our notice that all the above transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and there is no undisclosed cash credit involved in these transactions even though AO proceeded to disallow the same u/s 68 of the Act. After considering the overall facts on record, we do not see any reason to disturb the finding of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. - Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri D.P. Bansal, CA, Shri Ambareesha Agarwal, CA For the Revenue : Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR. ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-30, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to Ld. CIT (A) ) both dated 31.05.2022 and assessee has also filed cross objections for AYs 2015-16 2016-17. 2. Since the issues are common and appeals are inter-connected, the same are being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as unexplained cash credit and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and proceeded to add Rs. 2.65 crores u/s 68 of the Act. Considering the above addition, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee must have paid commission @ 2% on the above said amount to the aforesaid companies for providing accommodation entries and added Rs. 5,30,000/- u/s 69C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted detailed submissions before him and raised several grounds. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee has dismissed the jurisdictional issue which was raised by the assessee on reopening of the assessment, however deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act on merits. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced below :- 10. Ground Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 13 : In these grounds, the appellant challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 2,65,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credits received from below mentioned companies :- S.No. Name of the Lender Amount Received During t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal to the assessee and also did not provide the opportunity of cross-examination of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal, on which basis the addition has been made .. .. That statement alone cannot justify the additions made by the AO. Even if we accept the argument of the Revenue that the failure to cross-examine the witness did not prejudice the assessee, yet, we discern from the record that apart from the statement of Mr. Jindal, Revenue has failed to produce any corroborative material to justify the additions 10.4 Relying on the above decision, the appellant has stated that the addition in its case was solely based on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal in the case of Mr. Sajan Kumar Jain. It was also stated that Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal and other persons also did not name the appellant company in their statements. Accordingly, the appellant stressed that even the statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer did not incriminate the appellant, neither any material was found or seized which could be held against the appellant. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons in A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer in his order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 for the A.Y. 2013-14 dated 14.03.2022 and A.Y. 2014-15 also dated 14.03.2022 accepted unsecured loan received from these companies as explained. 10.6 The observations of Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order and the submission of the appellant have been carefully examined in view of various judicial precedents on the matter. It has been noted that the Assessing Officer re-opened the case under appeal on the basis of statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal and the dummy Directors of the front companies in which it was admitted that these companies were providing bogus entries by accepting cash. Details of front companies managed and controlled by Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal have been analyzed by the Assessing Officer along with their bank statements and financial statements and he has found that credit entries to the extent of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- have been received by the appellant company in the form of unsecured loan, which are of the nature of accommodation entries. 10.7 It has been noted that Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal has admitted to providing accommodation entries to various beneficiarie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies have been accepted by the Assessing Officer as explained in the above mentioned years in similar circumstances. 10.9 In view of the above facts and judicial precedents, I find that the lending companies participated in the re-assessment proceedings and submitted confirmations and their financial statements in response to notices u/s 133(6) and 131 of the Act. The AO accepted the explanations received from these companies and appellant in the similar re-assessment proceedings in A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 but rejected in A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17 without assigning any specific reasons. I am therefore of the opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 2,65,00,000/- cannot be sustained. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are allowed. 6. Further, he has deleted the addition of unexplained commission made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act considering the fact that he has deleted the proposed addition u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the addition made based on the independent finding of the Assessing Officer and unsatisfactory submissions made by the assessee before him. 9. On the other hand, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of unsecured loan received by the assessee and also declared in the books of account of the assessee. Further, assessee has already submitted all the relevant evidences before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction. He submitted that all these informations are already declared in the books of account and Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act which is unexplained cash credit. He wondered that when all the informations are already explained in the books of account, the addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act. He supported the findings of the ld. CIT (A). 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that ld. CIT (A) has gone through the assessment order and the detailed submissions of the assessee and it is noticed that various companies who have lent unsecured loan to the assessee had sufficient creditworthiness and have been engaged in the business of len ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
