JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), RANGE-1, HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD

O R D E R

PER S.S. GODARA, JM:

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded exparte.

The Revenue has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:-

“1. The order of Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous on facts as well as in law.

2. Learned AR took us to the CIT(A)’s corresponding discussion reversing Assessing officer’s action disallowing depreciation of Rs. 3,95,00,000/- in the course of assessment dated 31.03.2015. We notice from a perusal of the Assessing officer’s remand report dated 27.11.2017 that he had duly accepted assessee’s depreciation claim and the impugned grievance therefore does not arise at all. We quote (i) CIT vs. DM Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Kar.) (HC) and (ii) Smt. B Jaya Lakshmi vs. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad) that the Revenue cannot be held as an aggrieved party in case of Assessing officer’s filing favourable remand report before the CIT(A). We adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis and delete this former substantive ground for this precise reason alone.

3. Next comes the latter issue of unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.82,77,00,000/- deleted by CIT(A) as per his detailed discussion as under.

“Addition u/s.68 towards loans of Rs.82,77,00,000/- 12.1. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that there were loans of Rs.82,77,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to submit the loans-other and breakup of the same. The assessee submitted that it is in the process of obtaining confirmations and repayment statements from the parties concerned. The assessee further submitted that the loan was availed from APSRTC, ET & CCS Ltd, during December, 2011 and January, 2012. However, the documents evidencing the receipt and its utility were not submitted. Therefore, the genuineness of the transaction and identity of the lenders has not been proved. The Assessing Officer concluded that it is the onus of the assessee to prove identity, genuineness & creditworthiness of the loans received as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674).

12.2 Before me, the appellant submitted that the corporation had obtained loan from APSRTC Employees Thrift and credit Co-operative Society Ltd., for Rs.38.00 Crs on 20.12.2011 and Rs.50.00 Crs on 30.11.2011. The appellant submitted that an amount of Rs.5.23 Crs has paid to the CCS for repayment of loan EMI from 01.01.2012 to 31.03.2012. The balance amount of RS.82. 77 Crs is shown as closing balance. The appellant submitted that APSRTC Employees Thrift and Credit Co-Operative Society is promoted by APSTRC for welfare of employees to promote thrift and savings. This society is an assessed with PAN No. AAEAT6546K. The appellant submitted that since the identity was established and the capacity cannot doubted, invoking provisions of section is not correct.

12.3. The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. Appellant submitted that as per Balance sheet in Schedule -B. Out of borrowings of Rs.8800 lakhs, Rs.523 lakhs were repaid leaving a balance of Rs.8277 lakhs. The appellant submitted the account copy from books of APSRTC Employees thrift and credit cooperative society and the balance sheet of the society. The submissions of the appellant is accepted. It is a' registered Thrift Credit Co-operative Society and hence the submissions of the appellant is accepted. Addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. -Ground Allowed

4. Ld.CIT-DR vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidence thereby deleting the impugned sec.68 addition in violation of Rule 46A of IT Rules. It is evident from perusal of above extracted CIT(A)’s discussion that he has not admitted any additional evidence at all of the Income Tax rules and, therefore, it could not be treated as an instance of violation of rule 46A as it has been projected at the Revenue’s behest. The fact also emerges that CIT(A) has himself verified the fact that the impugned sum had come as a loan from M/s APSRTC 3 Employees’ Thrift and Credit Cooperative Society Limited only has nowhere been rebutted in Revenue’s pleadings before us. All this sufficiently explain source of his impugned sums. We thus uphold the CIT(A)’s findings on both these counts.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in Open Court on 11th June, 2021.