Sampark India Logistics Limited vs ACIT

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 30, New Delhi [CIT(A) in short], dated 26.06.2025 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2022 for Asst. Year 2017-1 8.

Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee is reopened on the basis of information found as a result of search and seizure operation conducted in the case of Samtel Group of Companies on 18.01.2018 wherein it was found that certain Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFCs) namely M/s SW Consultants Pvt. Ltd., M/s CEA Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Tish Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Lenient Consultants Pvt. Ltd. were involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus unsecured loans. During the course of search in the statements recorded of one Sh. Anil Agarwal and Sh. Shailendra, they have admitted the facts and submissions and the list of beneficiaries of such accommodation entries. Since, the assessee name was found and one of the beneficiaries accepting the loan of Rs.43,39,941/- from M/s Lenient Consultants Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the reasons were recorded for reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act and after obtaining the approval u/s 151 of the Act from the competent authority, notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. In response, the assessee has not filed the return of income nor any in response to notice u/s 142(1), return was filed. Thereafter, finally on 04.02.2022 assessee has filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,59,94,680/-. Thereafter, the AO asked the assessee to establish the genuineness of loan taken from M/s Lenient Consultants Pvt. Ltd., however, no reply was submitted by the assessee. The AO than issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to lender company which remained unanswered. The AO observed that when the draft assessment order was served upon the assessee alongwith the show cause notice on 23.03.2022, assesses had filed the reply dated 25.03.2022 that no transactions was carried out with M/s Lenient Consultants Pvt. Ltd. during the year under appeal and loan was taken in immediately preceding year where the reassessment order has already been passed by making the addition of such loan. The AO further observed that surprisingly on the same date, the lender company had also filed the reply. Therefore, the AO framed the opinion that the assessee as well as the lender company were in agreement and made the addition of Rs. 43,39,941/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and further invoked provisions of section c115BBE of the Act to charge higher rate of tax.

Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein similar arguments were taken however, Ld. CIT(A) by observing that there was a difference in the amount of loan taken in preceding year and of the amount of loan for the year under appeal, had confirmed the addition made and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking solitary ground of appeal that the loan of Rs. 43,39,941/- for which addition was made u/s 68 of the Act was actually taken in Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to Asst. Year 2017-18 and not the previous year relevant to assessment year under appeal.

Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is observed from para 5 at page 26 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee in its submissions had clearly stated that no loan was taken during the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 i.e. the year under appeal and the loan was taken in Financial Year 2015-16 where the addition was already made in the order passed u/s 148 of the Act. In support of the assessee also filed the copy of the bank statements and the reassessment order so passed. However, Ld. CIT(A) in para 9.5 of the order has observed that the loan of Rs.40 lacs was taken by the assessee from M/s Lenient Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in Financial Year 2015-16 whereas in the year under appeal addition was made for the loan of Rs. 43,39,941/- and thus, due to this difference, Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition. Claim of the assessee was the same that no fresh funds were received in this year and the total loan received from M/s Lenient Consultants Pvt. Ltd. was of Rs.40 lacs only which was received in preceding assessment year where the reassessment order was already passed by making addition on this loan treating the same as unexplained. This being so in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of both the lower authorities and restore the issue to the file of AO with the direction to verify the claim of the assessee whether any fresh loan was received during the year under appeal from M/s Lenient Consultants Pvt. Ltd., and if the contention of the assessee that no loan was taken during the year under appeal is found correct no addition is required to be made in the year before us. With these directions, the solitary ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.