TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1056/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2018 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM For The Revenue : M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR For The Assessee : Prakash K. Jotwani, AR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)] in appeal No. CIT(A)-37/IT-335/ACIT 25(3)/2014-15 dated 31-12-2015. The Assessment was framed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 21(1), Mumbai (in short JCIT) for the assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 29-03-2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter the Act ). 2. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act in respect of loan credit of Albright Consultant Pvt. Ltd. amounting to ₹ 1.50 crores. For this Revenue has raised following ground No. 1 and 2: - '1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions mace u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of money received from MIS. Albright Consultant amounting to ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is unable to prove the genuineness of transaction and hence, he added the sum of ₹ 1.50 crores. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance after considering the submissions of the assessee by observing in Para 5.3 to 5.5 as under: - 5.3 The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Builders and Developers. During the year under appeal, the appellant has shown ₹ 1,50,00,000/- towards unsecured loan from M/s. Albright Consultants P. Ltd. The AO in the assessment proceedings has questioned the genuineness of the creditor MIs. Albright Consultants P. Ltd. The AR of the appellant appeared and furnished the details such as confirmation letter, return of income of M/s. Albright Consultants P. Ltd. and other various documents to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the said company and genuineness of the loan. The appellant has also produced Pan Card, Income Tax Returns acknowledgement, Letters from the Reserve Bank of India, Bank statement, Auditor's report, Audited Financial Reports etc. and also submitted bank statement, the detail of the source of transaction. The AD has rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the assessee has produced copy of Pan Card, Income Tax returns acknowledgement, letter from RBI, Bank statements depicting this entry of loan of ₹ 1.50 crore, auditor report, financial statements etc. to prove the creditworthiness of the party, genuineness of transaction and sources of transaction. We find that in earlier years i.e. AY 2010-11 also, the assessee has obtained loan of ₹ 1.12 crores from the same party, wherein exactly on identical circumstances CIT(A) deleted and further, Tribunal has confirmed the order of CIT(A). Now, before us the learned Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of Tribunal order in assessee s own case for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 593/Mum/2015 order dated 27-12-2016 confirmed the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition earlier year order in ITA No. 2034 2491/Mum/2014 for AY 2009-10 vide order dated 09-05-2016 at para 9 and reads as under: - 9. Learned AR placed on record the order of the tribunal in assessee s own case wherein addition made in the immediate preceding year was deleted by Tribunal vide its order dated 09/05/2016 in ITA No.2034/Mum/2014, wherein Tribunal observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies that the identity of the loan creditors has been established. Even though the assessing officer has expressed doubt about the credit worthiness of the creditors on the basis of low income reported by them, yet the Ld CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the fact that these companies have used their own capital funds for advancing loan to the assessee company. The quantum of own funds held by these companies has also been discussed by Ld CIT(A). In our view, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the income declared by these loan companies are not the criteria, but the source for giving the loans to the assessee company is the determinative of the credit worthiness. Thus, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly held that the credit worthiness of the loan creditors has also been established. 16. It is a well settled proposition that the genuineness of the transactions shall stand established if the transactions are routed through banking channels. In the instant case, the loan transactions have been routed through the banking channels. Hence the genuineness of the transactions also stand established. However, the Ld CIT(A) has expressed doubt about the genuineness in respect of loan taken from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
