Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1383 - AT - Income TaxAddition made towards unsecured loan u/s.68 - proof of necessary ingredients of Section 68 - notice u/s.133(6) of the Act returned unserved - HELD THAT:- As assessee had submitted all the documentary evidences to prove the three necessary ingredients of Section 68 of the Act justifying the veracity of the loan taken by the assessee from M/s. Fastline Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. - It is not in dispute that the assessee had paid interest on the said loan after due deduction of tax at source and that the said interest income has also been offered by the lender company and the revenue had given due credit for the TDS claim thereon in the assessment of lender company. Even in the hands of the assessee company, the interest paid on loans is allowed as deduction. From the elaborate findings given by the ld. CIT(A) above, we find that the assessee had duly discharged the necessary three ingredients of Section 68 of the Act in the instant case. Merely because the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act returned unserved, no adverse inference could be drawn on the assessee ignoring the various documentary evidences on record. Nothing prevented the ld. AO to make enquiries from his side with the Assessing Officer of the lender company, and examine the veracity of the loan taken by the assessee, the details of which are very much available before the ld. AO. There is no case for the revenue to draw adverse inference on the various documentary evidences submitted by the assessee eventually to treat the loan received from M/s. Fastline Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., as “ingenuine loan”. Unexplained share capital and share premium - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) had elaborately dealt with the entire issue by due appreciation of the various documentary evidences submitted in respect of investor companies duly proving the three necessary ingredients of Section 68 of the Act viz. identity of the investors, creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions. We find that none of these documentary evidences were controverted by the ld. AO by proceeding to make further enquiry in this regard. None of these facts were even denied by the ld. AO or any deficiencies were found thereon by the ld. AO and we also take note of the fact that out of the five investor companies who had invested monies in the assessee company, four of them are public limited companies which are listed in various stock exchanges - Decided against revenue.
|