AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi [hereinafter referred to as [“Ld. NFAC”] vide order dated 22-08-2025 arising out the Assessment Order passed dated 25-03-2025 under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act” Act, dated 28-06-2023.
The assessee has only raised the ground no 11 in appeal as under:
11(i) on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.2,34,01,340/- made by the AO alleging that assessee has received unsecured loans during the year under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
(ii)that the abovesaid addition has been confirmed ignoring the contention of the assessee that no such amount has been received by the assessee in the year under consideration and accordingly, the provisions of section 68 are not applicable.
(iii)That the above said addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations along with the evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading, distribution and system integration of networking equipment and other allied activities. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 22-09-2028 declaring total income of Rs.9,69,039/-. As per the information available with the department that during the course of search proceedings in the case of M/s KK Spun India Limited various incriminating evidences were gathered and examined and it was found that Shri Aditya Jain Being an accommodation entry operator has provided accommodation entries to the various entities and assessee has taken the accommodation entry of Rs.2,34,01,340/-as unsecured loans. The case of the assessee was reopened based on information received from the Investigation Wing. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee filed the reply in the compliance of the notices. According to AO the assessee had received credit entries for Rs.40,60,270/-from the M/s Infocus Securities Private Limited and for Rs.1,93,41,070/- from M/s Quetzal Exim Private Limited which was allegedly controlled by the said entry provider. According to AO the assessee had made the transaction with the above companies during the F.Y. 2017-18 A.Y.2018-19. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings after making addition of Rs.2,34,01,340/- under section 147 of the Act.
Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 22-08-2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. NFAC has observed in his order as under:
“Decision: I have considered the facts of the case, written submission and case laws relied upon by appellant as against the observations and findings of the AO in the assessment order. The submissions and contentions of the appellant are discussed and decided as under:
6.1Ground No. 1 to 4 In these grounds the appellant has challenged the addition worth Rs.2,34,01,340/- on account of undisclosed money from bogus entities. The search action was conducted in the case of M/s KK Spun India Ltd. where it was found that the appellant has taken accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans from Infocus Securities Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.40,60,270/- & Rs.1,93,41,070/- from Quetzal Exim Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.2,34,01,340/-. The AO provided various opportunities to the appellant from page 2 to pages 15 of the assessment order and came to the conclusion that the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions were not proved, hence AO made the addition. The AO also relied upon the statement of Mr. Aditya Jain, who on oath has admitted that he has provided accommodation entries to the appellant vide the statement dated 06-04-2021.
6.1.1Now before me in the appellate proceedings the appellant has filed written submission. The appellant has stated that the unsecured loans received are genuine and are routed through bank. The appellant has also filed the balance sheet, the P&L account and the bank statement in this regard. Reliance is placed here on the judgements of Delhi HC in the case of PCIT vs. NR Portfolio, in which Hon’ble Delhi HC has confirmed the addition of the department in the case of shell company on identical issues. This decision has been confirmed by Hon’ble SC. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon. SC in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron and Steel, where Hon. SC held that mere transaction through cheque and PAN and Income Tax Return will not explain the genuineness of the transaction of the shell company. Hence relying upon these decisions, the addition of the AO is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
7.The appeal of the appellant is Dismissed.
Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee had not received any unsecured loan during the Financial Year 2017-18 Assessment Year 2018-19. He also submitted that loans from the aforesaid parties were actually received in Financial Year 2015-16 and same were carried forward as opening balances in the year under consideration. He further submitted that no fresh loan was received from the afore said party during the year under consideration only interest accrued during the year was credited in their respective accounts. The assessee repaid the loan amount to M/s Infocus Securities Pvt Ltd and closing balance was shown nil as on 32-03-2018. The loan taken from the M/s Quetzal Exim Pvt. Ltd continued and closing balance of Rs.1,78,58,253/- was duly reflected in the audited financial statement. He further submitted that all the transaction were made through banking channels and TDS was deducted on interest payments (PB page 20-23). It is also submitted that no addition under section 68 of the Act can be made if the sums found credited in the books of accounts during the relevant previous year. He also submitted that without rejecting the books of account addition was made which is liable to be deleted. In the support of the contention the assessee filed a paper book containing page numbers 1 to 114. Reliance is placed on the following judgements:
Danayya Shavaputrayya Math DS Math vs. ACIT 2024(8) TMI 1599 dated 08-0802024(ITAT Bangalore)
Sandeep Kumar Dhamejanu vs. ACIT, 2024(5) TMI 1597 dated 17-05-2024 (ITAT Rajpur)
PCIT vs. M/s Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd.2024(3) TMI 156 Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 01-03-2024
The Ld. DR relied the order of the lower authorities and submitted that assessee had taken the accommodation entry, the appeal of the assessee was rightly dismissed.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case the ld. Assessing Officer made the addition under section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration. The assessee denied the allegation and submitted the details of the unsecured loan which was received in the previous year and duly reflected in the books of account. The transactions were made through banking channel and interest was paid after deducting the TDS. The opening balances brought forward from earlier years cannot be subjected to addition under section 68 in the current year. The Assessing Officer made the addition merely relied upon the information received from the Investigation Wing without conducting any independent verification. The assessee has fled the paper book to prove that the loan was received in the earlier year and reflected in the books of account and discharged the onus cast upon him. The Assessing Officer made the addition for the A.Y.2018-19 only on the assumption basis, therefore, the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted. The ground no 11 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the case of the assessee is adjudicated in favour in the assessee on merits, the other issues need not to be adjudicated upon.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.