2019 (2) TMI 101 - ITAT MUMBAI

Addition u/s 68 of unsecured loan taken by the assessee company - credibility of the corporate entity from whom loan has been taken - Held that:- A.O. has not brought on record any cogent, adverse material to rebut the credibility of the corporate entity from whom loan has been taken. As already pointed out by us as above, that these corporate entities were found by the A.O. to have acquired funds by borrowals and acceptance of share capital and share premium. This by itself cannot lead to presumption that these sources are bogus without any enquiry.

DR's request that this issue be again remitted to the file of the A.O. to make further necessary enquiries cannot be entertained. The decision of FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA (P.) LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2018 (7) TMI 1738 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] was on a different set of facts, wherein, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on the facts and circumstances of the case had upheld the certain direction of the ITAT. In the present case, as pointed out hereinabove, in our considered opinion, the assessee has discharged its onus. A.O. has not brought on required cogent material to rebut the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee nor he made any enquiry. As noted above, the assessee has given all the necessary evidence including the confirmation letters, bank statement, financial statements of the corporate entities.

Hence, in our considered opinion, the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction has been proved by the assessee and the onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order supported by appropriate case laws duly rebutting all the findings of the A.O. Hence we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A).

Since we have upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) as regards the deletion of the addition on account of unsecured loan, the disallowance of interest on that account has been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). We uphold the same also.

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- We find that the said issue is duly covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and the decision in the case of Principal CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.[2016 (10) TMI 1039 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In these cases, it was expounded that when no exempt income has been earned, no disallowance u/s.14A is permissible. - Decided in favour of assessee.