9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR. DR) ORDER PERBENCH: These bunch of appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, Ld.CIT(A) ] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ), for Assessment Years 2014-15,2013-14, 2010-11 2014-15, order passed for AY 2010-11 2014-15on dated 23.05.2023 and for AY 2013-14 on dated 24/05/2023.The impugned orders emanated from the orders of the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(3), Mumbai 03/11/2016, 04/03/2016 14/03/2016 03/11/2016, respectively, for AY 2010-11 order passed U/s 143(3)/147 and for AY 2013-14 2014-15 order passed U/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. All the appeals have the same nature of facts and have a common issue; so, ITA No.2538/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2010-11 is taken as the lead case. ITA No.2536/Mum/2023 is related to the disallowance of interest payment to the loan creditors. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the appeal before the ITAT in the name of ASG Capital Services Pvt Ltd; but the company has changed its status and is now known as ASG Capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at source on said interest paid to the lender companies. Assessee stated that it had repaid the entire loan taken from alleged bogus parties Le. Olive Overseas (Real Gold) and Triangular Infocom (Lexus Infotech) on 17.02.2014 and 15.03.2013 respectively. Assessee further submitted that Mr. Pravin Kumar Jian has already retracted his statement given during the search proceedings alleging that the same was made by him under pressure. Assessee filed copy of retraction statement. Assessee further submitted that unsecured loans borrowed from the alleged parties are genuine and it had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions by submitting all the related details and documents. Assessee also relied upon judicial pronouncements and requested not to made any addition on this ground. 5. The Ld.AR invited our attention in the paper book about the detail submission of documents for compliance of Section 68 of the Act, which are as follows: - Re.: Loan from Olive Overseas Ltd (Earlier Real gold Trading P. Ltd) PAN AACCR4512K Amount of LoanRs.50,00,000/- Interest Paid Rs. 11,45,063/- Taken on 12.12.2009 in FY 2009-10 (AY 2010-11) Sl no Documents APB, Pages 1.1 Ledger ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n serious doubt. Further, there is not any material linked to the assessee so as to enable the assessing officer to form a reasonable belief as regards income escaping assessment. In fact, in the entire order there is not a whisper about the name of the assessee in any of the information / statement / material, if any, relied on by Ld. AO. Such a reassessment deserves to be quashed and it is prayed accordingly. The ld. AR respectfully relied on the order PCIT v/s Shodiman Investments (2020) 422 ITR 337 (Bombay), Reynolds Shirting Ltd. v/s ACIT (2022) 285 Taxman 554 (Bombay), et. al. holding that re-assessment simply based on borrowed satisfaction of another officer / Investigation Wing and without any independent enquiry deserves to be quashed. 6.1. The ld. AR argued on the merits of addition u/s 68 are concerned and submits that it had furnished voluminous documents, evidence and detailed submissions as to why the addition in respect of inter-corporate deposits could not have been made. This fact is noted both by the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). Despite having furnished all these voluminous details and evidences, the addition was sustained simply on the basis of assumptions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed law that evidence tendered in the form of an affidavit cannot be lightly rejected and must be admitted unless the ld. AO being dissatisfied with the contents thereof proves to the contrary by examining the deponent. The ld. AR respectfully relied on the Mehta Parikh Co. v. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC). 6.6. The ld. AR argued related the disallowance of the interest payments pertaining to the relevant assessment year 2014-15 have been disallowed by the Ld. AO. In this impugned assessment year only the interest payment was rejected. The interest payments to Atharva Business Pvt. Ltd., Ansh Merchant Dyes Pvt. Ltd and May Fair Management Services is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that the said interest pertains to loan taken in earlier years and which have not been doubted by the department. Therefore, it is prayed that no disallowance as regards the said interest payment can be made. 7. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and relied on the orders of revenue authorities. The ld. DR respectfully relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Benches in the case of M/s Atharva Business Pvt. vs. DCIT date of pronouncement 25/08/2022. Further, he relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Olive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to Shri Ishwar Adwani in the immediate next financial year and the Department has accepted the repayment of loan without probing into it. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the ITAT has held that the matter is not required to be remanded as no other view would be possible, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ITAT. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Hence, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 8.1. Considering the legal grounds as argued by both the parties, we respectfully considered that the Judgements relied on by the ld. DR are factually distinguishable due to the following primary reasons. 8.1.1. The order in the case of Praveen Kumar Jain v/s DCIT ITA Nos 7191 to 7197 / M / 18is not applicable to the case of the assessee because the orders in this case are passed ex-parte and therefore the assessee was not defended; Even in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain, the estimate is made after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee hence genuinity or otherwise of the transactions was not adjudicated by the Tribunal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
