TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication has been carried out by the authorities below. Accordingly we hold that, the assessee has received a sum of ₹6 lakhs from the party and not ₹12 lakhs as alleged by the revenue. It is also not out of the place to mention that the loan received by the assessee in the year under consideration was refunded in the same financial year. It implies that the assessee was not the beneficiary of the loan received by it as alleged by the AO. Thus, we can assume that the impugned transaction was the business transactions between the assessee and the loan parties. Had there been any doubt by the Revenue on the repayment of the loan as claimed by the assessee, it was the duty of the revenue to carry out the necessary verificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ukla, Sr.D.R ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad, dated 26/09/2018 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the Act ) relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- considering the same as accommodation entry, such addition is requested to be deleted. 3. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Monisha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. has made the addition on the basis of detailed enquiry and statement of the director of M/s.Monisha infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. who has confirmed that the company is engaged in the business of accommodation entry. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 55 and contended that the assessee has received only 6 lakhs of rupees as unsecured loan from the company namely Monisha Infrastructure private Ltd dated 1 December 2011 which was returned on 6 January 2012. As such, the repayment of the loan was effected on 6th of January 2012 but the same was failed and therefore there we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there been any doubt about the amount of loan, the revenue could have verified the same from the bank. But we note that no such verification has been carried out by the authorities below. Accordingly we hold that, the assessee has received a sum of ₹6 lakhs from the party and not ₹12 lakhs as alleged by the revenue. 9.1 It is also not out of the place to mention that the loan received by the assessee in the year under consideration was refunded in the same financial year. It implies that the assessee was not the beneficiary of the loan received by it as alleged by the AO. Thus, we can assume that the impugned transaction was the business transactions between the assessee and the loan parties. In this regard, we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 68 of the Act after ignoring the debit entries. To our mind the debit entries cannot be set aside for determining the income of the assessee. 9.4 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, though the transactions of the loan received by the assessee are not free from any doubt but in either of the case, once repayment of the loan has been established based on the documentary evidence, the credit entries cannot be looked into isolation after ignoring the debit entries. Thus in view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we are not inclined to uphold the finding of the learned CIT-A. Accordingly we set aside the finding of the learned CIT-A and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
