2021 (11) TMI 137 - ITAT KOLKATA

Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained loan received from 11 parties - HELD THAT:- As assessee has old running accounts with the aforesaid parties - alleged report of the inspector in respect of the three parties was never confronted to the assessee. The assessee was never asked to produce any other information by the Ld. AO before arriving at the conclusions. The statement recorded of some persons/parties relied on by the Ld. AO was never confronted to the assessee. Even the alleged statements recorded in some other cases were allegedly recorded in the year 2014, whereas, the assessee had taken loan in the FY 2015-16 from the said parties, hence, the alleged statement relied upon by the Ld. AO was prior to the said loan transactions - persons on whose statement has been relied upon by the Ld. AO were neither operating nor controlling the said concerns at the time of the transactions done by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has also relied upon the balance sheets and submitted that the creditors had sufficient net worth to advance loans to the assessee - CIT(A) considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case has rightly deleted the addition so made by the ld. AO. Having gone through the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and considering the submissions of the ld. Counsel of the assessee, which the ld. DR could not rebut, we do not find any justification to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue, the same is accordingly upheld. This ground of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Delayed payment of interest on service tax and TDS holding the same as penal in nature - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We find that the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathura [1997 (12) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] and further on the decision of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Narayani Ispat Pvt. Ltd [2017 (10) TMI 67 - ITAT KOLKATA] wherein it has been held that the delayed payment of interest on service tax was compensatory in nature and the same was an allowable deduction. The Ld. DR could not point out any infirmity in the above observations of the ld. CIT(A). The order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is accordingly upheld. This ground of revenue’ s appeal is dismissed.