9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer - 28(2)(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The Ground No.1 raised by the assessee was stated to be not pressed by the ld AR at the time of hearing. The same is reckoned as a statement made from the Bar and hence the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are challenging the action of the ld CITA upholding the addition made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of loans received by the assessee. The interconnected issue involved therein is challenged in Ground No. 4 by the assessee with regard to disallowance of interest on aforesaid unsecured loans. 3.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Amount Interest Amount Sumukh Commercial Pvt Ltd 50,00,000 4,81,667 Olive Overseas Pvt Ltd 1,00,00,000 10,21,667 Josh Trading Co Pvt Ltd 1,00,00,000 9,01,667 Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd 50,00,000 5,45,000 Nakshatra Business Pvt Ltd 1,00,00,000 10,20,000 4,00,00,000 39,70,001 3.3. We find that the ld AO had observed that the aforesaid concerns were operated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and belong to his group. During the course of search action u/s 132(1) of the Act on 1.10.2013, Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had given statement on oath that his concerns are engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries and that his concerns do not indulge in real business activities. Accordingly, the ld AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) Master data of the companies (loan creditors) extracted from the website of the registrar of companies (ROC) showing that the compliance have been made by them with ROC and that the company is fully active. c) Copy of the financial statements of the companies (loan creditors) for the financial year 2012-13. d) Copy of ITR acknowledgement of the companies (loan creditors) for the Asst Year 2013-14. e) Extracts of the bank statements of the companies (loan creditors) showing the amounts paid by them to the assessee. f) Declaration given by the companies (loan creditors) duly confirming the loan transactions. g) Copy of the letter filed by the said companies (loan creditors). 3.5. It was pleaded that based on the aforesaid docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had also sought for cross-examination of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, which was never afforded to the assessee either by the ld AO or by the ld CITA. Hence we hold that the entire addition made by the ld AO and confirmed by the ld CITA, merely based on the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain (third party) (which also stood subsequently retracted by him by way of an independent affidavit), deserve to be deleted on this count itself. No other corroborative evidence was brought on record by the revenue to even remotely suggest that the loan transactions carried out by the assessee with the aforesaid 5 loan creditors to be ingenuine. 3.7.1. It is pertinent to note that the assessee had duly discharged its onus by submitting all the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Aquatic Remedies P ltd in ITA No. 83 of 2016 affirming the tribunal decision in ITA No. 6356/Mum/2014. We further find that all the loans were duly repaid by the assessee either in the same assessment year or in the immediately succeeding assessment year with interest after subjecting the interest to due deduction of tax at source. These facts are not controverted by the revenue before us. Hence the addition made u/s 68 of the Act deserve to be deleted on merits also. Correspondingly, the interest paid on such loans would become allowable expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act as there is no dispute that the monies received in the form of loans had been utilised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
