Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders both dated 24.04.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. The issue in dispute involved in both these appeals being identical, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience.
M/s Disha Construction 2 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023
We first take up the appeal for AY 2010 We first take up the appeal for AY 2010-11 for adjudication. 11 for adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11 are The grounds raised by the assessee in assessment year 2010 The grounds raised by the assessee in assessment year 2010 reproduced as under: reproduced as under:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans remained unexplained?" creditworthiness of the loans remained unexplained?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest of the I.T. Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest of the I.T. Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi o expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi o expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi of obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human conduct and preponderance of probability?" human conduct and preponderance of probability?" 3. " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 3. " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 3. " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court . CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court . CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018) upholding the addition made by the Assessing O upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer where it is held fficer where it is held by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted money must be subjected to careful scrutiny?" money must be subjected to careful scrutiny?" 2.1 Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of building and development of real estate. For the in the business of building and development of real estate. For the in the business of building and development of real estate. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring total income 29.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs.4,90,10,902/ Rs.4,90,10,902/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices under the Income statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment order passed u/s were issued and complied with. In the assessment order passed u/s were issued and complied with. In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 20.03.2013, t 43(3) of the Act on 20.03.2013, the Assessing Officer made he Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,85,50,000/ of Rs.6,85,50,000/- in respect of unsecured loans received in respect of unsecured loans received invoking section 68 of the Act invoking section 68 of the Act and disallowance of disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.1,78,86,545/ amounting to Rs.1,78,86,545/- invoking section 37 of the Act. invoking section 37 of the Act. On
M/s Disha Construction 3 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023
further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) delete further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition d the addition / disallowance following the finding of the Income following the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in (in tax Appellate Tribunal in (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in the case of the assessee short ‘the Tribunal’) in the case of the assessee for AY 2008 for AY 2008-09. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds reproduced above. grounds reproduced above.
Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing page 1 to 375. Book containing page 1 to 375.
We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. During the year under consideration, relevant material on record. During the year under consideration, relevant material on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee received fresh the assessee received fresh loans from the six parties from whom loans from the six parties from whom loans were received in the assessment year 2008 loans were received in the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee 09. The assessee also paid interest to nine parties from whom the loans were received also paid interest to nine parties from whom the loans were received also paid interest to nine parties from whom the loans were received in the year under consideration as well as in the earlier years. A list in the year under consideration as well as in the earlier in the year under consideration as well as in the earlier of such parties reproduced by the Assessing Officer in para 5.4 of es reproduced by the Assessing Officer in para 5.4 of es reproduced by the Assessing Officer in para 5.4 of the assessment order is extracted as under: the assessment order is extracted as under:
Fresh Loan S. No. Name of loan creditor Name of loan creditor received Interest debited Interest debited 1. Chintamani Exporte Chintamani Exporte 1,90,00,000 8,87,169 8,87,169 2. Yogi Diam 17,50,000 26,25,738 3. Vaishali Gems Vaishali Gems 1,88,00,000 40,45,554 4. B. Ashok Km & Co. B. Ashok Km & Co. 0 5. Akruti Stone Akruti Stone 0 0 6. Kushal Exports Kushal Exports 1,25,00,000 25,01,836 7. Maniprabha Exports Maniprabha Exports 65,00,000 29,97,970 8. Priya Gems 1,00,00,000 39,91,353 9. Manav Trading(l) Pvt. Ltd. Manav Trading(l) Pvt. Ltd. 0 0 10. P Jitendra & Co. P Jitendra & Co. 0 0 11. Prachi Gems Prachi Gems 0 73,955 12. PR Diamonds PR Diamonds 0 67,395
M/s Disha Construction 4 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023
Sanskar Exports Sanskar Exports 0 695575 Total 6,85,50,000 1,78,86,545 4.1 The Assessing Officer observed that fresh loans The Assessing Officer observed that fresh loans The Assessing Officer observed that fresh loans were received in the year under consideration in the year under consideration from parties, the from parties, the loans received from whom in earlier years in earlier years i.e AY 2008-09 had been held 09 had been held as unexplained cash credit unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. During the year under . During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer called for the information consideration, the Assessing Officer called for the information consideration, the Assessing Officer called for the information invoking invoking section section 133(6) 133(6) of of the the Act Act for for verifying verifying identity, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction transaction. Those parties duly complied and filed duly complied and filed the information called for by the Assessing the information called for by the Assessing officer. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the loan creditors . The Assessing Officer was of the view that the loan creditors . The Assessing Officer was of the view that the loan creditors parties during the year under consideration were parties during the year under consideration were same same as discussed in para 24 of the asse para 24 of the assessment order for the assessment year 2008 ssment order for the assessment year 2008- 09. The Assessing Officer observed that major loan creditors were 09. The Assessing Officer observed that major loan creditors 09. The Assessing Officer observed that major loan creditors closely linked to each other and closely linked to each other and were engaged in were engaged in the business of trading in diamonds and precious stones. The loan creditors had trading in diamonds and precious stones. The loan creditors trading in diamonds and precious stones. The loan creditors meager incomes and meager incomes and had advanced disproportionately substantial advanced disproportionately substantial loans and substantial interest payment/receipts against loans are loans and substantial interest payment/receipts against loans are loans and substantial interest payment/receipts against loans are shown on record. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee shown on record. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee shown on record. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had introduced its own income from undisclosed sources in the had introduced its own income from undisclosed sources in the had introduced its own income from undisclosed sources in the form of loans. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of the Assessing Officer relying on the decision of the Assessing Officer relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 214 214 ITR ITR 801 801 (SC) (SC) held held the the fresh fresh unsecured unsecured loan loan of of received from relevant parties as unexplained Rs.6,85,50,000/- received from relevant parties as unexplained received from relevant parties as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. Further, the cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. Further, the cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. Further, the
M/s Disha Construction 5 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023
interest claimed by the assessee in respect of those unsecured loan interest claimed by the assessee in respect of those unsecured loan interest claimed by the assessee in respect of those unsecured loan parties amounting to Rs.1, parties amounting to Rs.1,78,86,545/- was also was also disallowed. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as under:
“[1.5.4] A perusal of the assessment order would show that the [1.5.4] A perusal of the assessment order would show that the [1.5.4] A perusal of the assessment order would show that the assessing officer has doubted about the credit worthiness only on the assessing officer has doubted about the credit worthiness only on the assessing officer has doubted about the credit worthiness only on the reasoning that reasoning that the income declared by each of the creditors was lower the income declared by each of the creditors was lower and disproportionate to the loan amount given by them. The AO took and disproportionate to the loan amount given by them. The AO took and disproportionate to the loan amount given by them. The AO took reference of "para 22" of the assessment order for the A. Y. 2008 reference of "para 22" of the assessment order for the A. Y. 2008 reference of "para 22" of the assessment order for the A. Y. 2008-09 in respect of genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan credit respect of genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan credit respect of genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. It is a well settled proposition that the initial burden of proof to prove the cash well settled proposition that the initial burden of proof to prove the cash well settled proposition that the initial burden of proof to prove the cash credits is placed upon the assessee, i.e., the assessee is required to credits is placed upon the assessee, i.e., the assessee is required to credits is placed upon the assessee, i.e., the assessee is required to discharge three main ingredients in respect of the cash creditors, viz., the discharge three main ingredients in respect of the cash creditors, viz., the discharge three main ingredients in respect of the cash creditors, viz., the identity of the cre identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transactions and credit ditor, the genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of the creditor. worthiness of the creditor. In connection to this, the assessee furnished In connection to this, the assessee furnished the following:- i. Copy of the account of the appellant in the books of loan i. Copy of the account of the appellant in the books of loan i. Copy of the account of the appellant in the books of loan creditor. creditor. ii. Relevant bank statement of loan ii. Relevant bank statement of loan creditor. iii. Copy of acknowledgement for having filed return of income of i. Copy of acknowledgement for having filed return of income of i. Copy of acknowledgement for having filed return of income of the loan creditor. the loan creditor. iv. Full set of audited accounts with tax audit report of loan iv. Full set of audited accounts with tax audit report of loan iv. Full set of audited accounts with tax audit report of loan creditor. creditor. After examining the evidences submitted by the assessee of the creditors, After examining the evidences submitted by the assessee of the creditors, After examining the evidences submitted by the assessee of the creditors, I came to the conclusion that the sources of funds given to the assessee conclusion that the sources of funds given to the assessee conclusion that the sources of funds given to the assessee stand explained through the financial statements. In the instant case, the stand explained through the financial statements. In the instant case, the stand explained through the financial statements. In the instant case, the identity of all the creditors stand established, since the assessee has identity of all the creditors stand established, since the assessee has identity of all the creditors stand established, since the assessee has furnished their supporting evidences and further t furnished their supporting evidences and further the AO has also he AO has also identified the owners of all the concerns. There is no dispute that the loan identified the owners of all the concerns. There is no dispute that the loan identified the owners of all the concerns. There is no dispute that the loan transactions have been routed through the banking channels and hence transactions have been routed through the banking channels and hence transactions have been routed through the banking channels and hence the genuineness of the loan transactions also stand established. The the genuineness of the loan transactions also stand established. The the genuineness of the loan transactions also stand established. The assessing officer did not assessing officer did not examine the financial statements like Balance examine the financial statements like Balance Sheet of each of the creditor to find out the sources available with the Sheet of each of the creditor to find out the sources available with the Sheet of each of the creditor to find out the sources available with the each of the creditor in order to give loan to the assessee. I find that the each of the creditor in order to give loan to the assessee. I find that the each of the creditor in order to give loan to the assessee. I find that the AO merely doubted the genuineness of credits without bringing AO merely doubted the genuineness of credits without bringing AO merely doubted the genuineness of credits without bringing on record any substantial piece of evidences contrary to the claim of the appellant. any substantial piece of evidences contrary to the claim of the appellant. any substantial piece of evidences contrary to the claim of the appellant. Further, I find that the AO has wrongly presumed that appellant has not Further, I find that the AO has wrongly presumed that appellant has not Further, I find that the AO has wrongly presumed that appellant has not discharged its onus cast upon it in furnishing required evidences of discharged its onus cast upon it in furnishing required evidences of discharged its onus cast upon it in furnishing required evidences of credits appearing in its book credits appearing in its books of account.
M/s Disha Construction 6 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023
[1.5.5] In this instant, the addition made in the impugned order In this instant, the addition made in the impugned order In this instant, the addition made in the impugned order is similar and based on the reasoning in "para 22" of the order passed for the A.Y. and based on the reasoning in "para 22" of the order passed for the A.Y. and based on the reasoning in "para 22" of the order passed for the A.Y. 2008-09. The addition made by the AO in the assessment order passed 09. The addition made by the AO in the assessment order passed 09. The addition made by the AO in the assessment order passed for the A.Y. 2008 for the A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 was deleted by the Ld CIT(A) and further 10 was deleted by the Ld CIT(A) and further the order of the Ld CIT (A) was confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT "D" the order of the Ld CIT (A) was confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT "D" the order of the Ld CIT (A) was confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT "D" BENCH, MUMBAI vide order dated 31 March, 2015 in I.T.A. BENCH, MUMBAI vide order dated 31 March, 2015 in I.T.A. BENCH, MUMBAI vide order dated 31 March, 2015 in I.T.A. No.4992/Mum/2012. No.4992/Mum/2012. [1.5.6] In view of the above discussion and considering the In view of the above discussion and considering the facts and In view of the above discussion and considering the circumstances of the case which is similar to the order passed for the circumstances of the case which is similar to the order passed for the circumstances of the case which is similar to the order passed for the A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-10, I hereby delete the additions made to the tune 10, I hereby delete the additions made to the tune of Rs.6,85,50,000/ of Rs.6,85,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act & Rs.1,78,86,545/- on account of disallowance of interest. disallowance of interest. Assessee's appea Assessee's appeal succeeds in Gr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.” 4.2 We find that the parties from whom loan received and added the parties from whom loan received and added the parties from whom loan received and added invoking section 68 of the Act i invoking section 68 of the Act in the year under consideration n the year under consideration are same parties , the loan received from whom was held as same parties , the loan received from whom was held as same parties , the loan received from whom was held as unexplained cash credit in AY 20 unexplained cash credit in AY 2008-09. There is no dispute on this 09. There is no dispute on this fact. The loan parties had fact. The loan parties had filed details in support of in support of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction but the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction but the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction but the Assessing Officer simply simply relying on the order for assessment year assessment year 2008-09 and making similar obs and making similar observation but without any ervation but without any observation specific to any party, observation specific to any party, held the fresh loan received from held the fresh loan received from those parties as unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) following those parties as unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) following those parties as unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) following the finding of the Tribunal for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No. the finding of the Tribunal for assessment year 2008 the finding of the Tribunal for assessment year 2008 4992/Mum/2012 deleted the deleted the addition. The relevant finding of the . The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: Tribunal is reproduced as under:
“12. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee 12. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee 12. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee has established the genuineness of the transactions and the credit has established the genuineness of the transactions and the credit has established the genuineness of the transactions and the credit worthiness of all the loan creditors. The AO h worthiness of all the loan creditors. The AO had reached certain ad reached certain conclusions in paragraph 22 of the assessment order. However, the Ld conclusions in paragraph 22 of the assessment order. However, the Ld conclusions in paragraph 22 of the assessment order. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that the assessing officer has simply gone on extraneous CIT(A) held that the assessing officer has simply gone on extraneous CIT(A) held that the assessing officer has simply gone on extraneous considerations by making wild guesses unconnected with the application considerations by making wild guesses unconnected with the application considerations by making wild guesses unconnected with the application of sec. 68. Accordingly, the of sec. 68. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the assessment of creditors Ld CIT(A) deleted the assessment of creditors made u/s 68 of the Act. made u/s 68 of the Act.
M/s Disha Construction 7 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023
Before us, even though the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was Before us, even though the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was Before us, even though the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition, yet he could not controvert any of the not correct in deleting the addition, yet he could not controvert any of the not correct in deleting the addition, yet he could not controvert any of the findings given by the Ld CIT(A). As observed by us earlier, we notice that findings given by the Ld CIT(A). As observed by us earlier, we notice that findings given by the Ld CIT(A). As observed by us earlier, we notice that the assessee has discharged the initi the assessee has discharged the initial burden of proof placed upon it al burden of proof placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act by proving the credit worthiness of all the creditors. As u/s 68 of the Act by proving the credit worthiness of all the creditors. As u/s 68 of the Act by proving the credit worthiness of all the creditors. As pointed out by Ld CIT(A), the quantum of income declared in the income pointed out by Ld CIT(A), the quantum of income declared in the income pointed out by Ld CIT(A), the quantum of income declared in the income tax returns is not the sole factor that determine the credit worthiness. On tax returns is not the sole factor that determine the credit worthiness. On tax returns is not the sole factor that determine the credit worthiness. On examination of the Balance sheet filed by the creditors, the Ld CIT(A) has examination of the Balance sheet filed by the creditors, the Ld CIT(A) has examination of the Balance sheet filed by the creditors, the Ld CIT(A) has given a definite finding that all the creditors were having enough sources, given a definite finding that all the creditors were having enough sources, given a definite finding that all the creditors were having enough sources, either received through realisation of sundry debtors or through loans, for either received through realisation of sundry debtors or through loans, for either received through realisation of sundry debtors or through loans, for giving advance to the assess giving advance to the assessee. Before us, the Ld D.R could not ee. Before us, the Ld D.R could not controvert the above said findings given by Ld CIT(A). We notice that he controvert the above said findings given by Ld CIT(A). We notice that he controvert the above said findings given by Ld CIT(A). We notice that he assessing officer, as observed by the first appellate authority, has assessing officer, as observed by the first appellate authority, has assessing officer, as observed by the first appellate authority, has proceeded to assess the creditors u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and proceeded to assess the creditors u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and proceeded to assess the creditors u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures without rebutting any of the evidences furnished by the s without rebutting any of the evidences furnished by the s without rebutting any of the evidences furnished by the assessee. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order assessee. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order assessee. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) in AY 2008 passed by the Ld CIT(A) in AY 2008-09.” 4.3 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of the We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of the We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of the unexplained cash credit unexplained cash credit and interest disallowance following the and interest disallowance following the binding precedent in the case of the assessee itself and therefore, binding precedent in the case of the assessee itself and therefore, binding precedent in the case of the assessee itself and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and we accordingly uphold the same. The grounds issue in dispute and we accordingly uphold the same. The grounds issue in dispute and we accordingly uphold the same. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. e Revenue are accordingly dismissed.
The ground raised in assessment year 2011 The ground raised in assessment year 2011-12 are reproduced 12 are reproduced as under:
"5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the detailed facts brought on record by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the by the AO and also fact that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans remained unexplained?" loans remained unexplained?" 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the l.T. Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, Act and disallowance of the corresponding interest expenses, though it is well established that the modus operandi of obtaining though it is well established that the modus operandi of obtaining though it is well established that the modus operandi of obtaining accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the accommodation entries of unsecured loan had to be considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human c light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human c light of surrounding circumstances, normal course of human conduct and preponderance of probability?" preponderance of probability?" "7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgment by the Apex Court in the
M/s Disha Construction 8 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023
case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Vs. NRA I 1 Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of Steel Pvt. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018) upholding the 2018) upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer where it is held by the Apex addition made by the Assessing Officer where it is held by the Apex addition made by the Assessing Officer where it is held by the Apex Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted money must be Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted money must be Court that the practice of conversion of unaccounted money must be subjected to careful scrutiny?" subjected to careful scrutiny?" 5.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the year dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the year dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the year under consideration, the loan has been received from following under consideration, the loan has been received from following under consideration, the loan has been received from following parties:
Sr. Fresh loan received Fresh loan received Interest No. Name of Loan creditors Name of Loan creditors (Rs.) Debited (Rs.) 1. CHINTAMANI EXPORTS CHINTAMANI EXPORTS 75,00,000 75,00,000 2074807 2. KUSHAL EXPORT KUSHAL EXPORT 89,00,000 89,00,000 1274327 3. MANIPRABH EXPORTS MANIPRABH EXPORTS 1,13,00,000 1,13,00,000 4292161 4. PRIYA GEMS PRIYA GEMS 40,00,000 40,00,000 1981295 5. VAISHALI GEMS VAISHALI GEMS 2,50,00,000 2,50,00,000 1445398 6. YOGI DIAM YOGI DIAM 1,78,00,000 1,78,00,000 824201 7. PRACHI GEMS PRACHI GEMS 0 0 8. P. R. DIAMONDS R. DIAMONDS 0 0 9. SANSKAR EXPORTS SANSKAR EXPORTS 0 0 7,45,00,000 7,45,00,000 11892189 5.2 The Assessing Officer has made addition The Assessing Officer has made addition u/s 68 of the Act and u/s 68 of the Act and disallowed the interest payment in respect of those loans. The the interest payment in respect of those loans. The the interest payment in respect of those loans. The finding of the Assessing Officer in the year under consideration is finding of the Assessing Officer in the year under consideration is finding of the Assessing Officer in the year under consideration is identically worded to assessment year 2010 identically worded to assessment year 2010-11 except the change of 11 except the change of the amount. The Ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the addition following the amount. The Ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the addition following the amount. The Ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the addition following the finding of the Tribunal in assessment year 2008 he finding of the Tribunal in assessment year 2008- -09. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer being similar to of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer being similar to of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer being similar to assessment year 2010 assessment year 2010-11 ,therefore, following our find therefore, following our finding in assessment year 2010 assessment year 2010-11, the grounds of appeal for the year under he grounds of appeal for the year under consideration are also also dismissed.
M/s Disha Construction 9 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2207 & 2292/Mum/2023
In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 and 1011-12 are dismissed. 12 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 25/10/2023. /10/2023. Sd/ Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/10/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai