2022 (1) TMI 486 - ITAT DELHI

Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loans received - sole reason for confirming the addition was low income tax return in the year of issue whereas it was contended that it is not the case for the subsequent years - HELD THAT:- For unsecured loans from Kaypee Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. subsequent to the receipt of the reply from the lender, the AO did not conduct any further enquiry. The report of the DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) and the AO was much before 21.12.2017 i.e. with response to the letter issued by the DDIT(Inv.), Noida on 14.10.2015. It is apparent from the facts on record, while as per the report of 2015, the notice u/s 131 could not be served whereas during the assessment proceedings in 2017, the entire details have been submitted by the assessee. The response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) was full and comprehensive. The amounts have been received by the assessee on 27.07.2009 of ₹ 16,00,000/- and ₹ 18,00,000/- on 31.07.2009 as ICD bearing interest of 9%. The same has been repaid on 07.01.2014 along with the interest agreed upon. The date of search in the group was conducted on 26.08.2015. Having examined the receipt of loan independently disregarding the date of search, we find that the assessee discharge the onus, proved the receipt and repayment of the loan received along with the interest and the same is also been brought before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Hence, the reasons given by the revenue authorities for treating the loan amount u/s 68 is factually and legally not valid. Hence, we hereby direct the addition made be obliterated.

Unsecured loan received from Cindy Goods & Supply Pvt. Ltd. - ITAT [2020 (2) TMI 1224 - ITAT DELHI] has duly considered the identity of the company and found it to have been incorporated in the year 1995, the amounts have been accepted as genuine during the assessments completed u/s 143(3), the returned income range from ₹ 1.4 crores, ₹ 75 lacs, ₹ 11 lacs for the A.Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2015-16 respectively proving that the lender company cannot be considered as a accommodation entry provider/paper company. The company has duly responded to notices issued u/s 133(6) to the revenue authorities. Further, the Director of the company namely, Mr. Vipul Kumar has confirmed the investments made in the assessee company during the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act by the AO. Hence, keeping in view, the facts narrated above, we find that the observation of the revenue authorities holding that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender company could not be proved is contrary to the facts on record. Hence, the addition made by the revenue authorities is liable to be obliterated.

Addition of the 8% non-convertible, preference shares received by the assessee u/s 68 - Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT [2020 (2) TMI 1224 - ITAT DELHI] has considered the identity of the companies and found that Giri Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. to have been incorporated in the year 1995, the amounts have been accepted as genuine during the assessments completed u/s 143(3), the returned income range from ₹ 53.9 lacs, ₹ 9.16 lacs, ₹ 148 lacs for the A.Y. 2013-14, A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 respectively in the case of Giri Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and in the case of Pabla Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 30.85 lacs for the A.Y. 2013-14, Rs.(-) 52.22 lacs for A.Y. 2014-15 and ₹ 93.18 lacs for A.Y. 2015-16 which undisputedly proves that the investor companies cannot be considered as a accommodation entry provider/paper company. The company has duly responded to notices issued u/s 133(6) to the revenue authorities. Further, Shri Virendra Tripathy, Managing Director of M/s Pabla Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., has confirmed the investments made in the assessee company during the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act by the revenue authorities. Mr. Anshul Mittal , Director of the company has submitted all the relevant details before the revenue authorities. Hence, keeping in view, the facts narrated above, we find that the observation of the revenue authorities holding that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender company could not be proved is contrary to the facts on record. Hence, the addition made by the revenue authorities is liable to be obliterated.