INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-16(3), DELHI ITO vs. MANSAROVER EXIM PVT. LTD. , DELHI

Against this order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who vide order dt. 29.01.2024, deleted the additions / disallowance made by the AO.

Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal on the basis of following grounds of appeal- 1) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,00,10,170/- made by Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the fact that the assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of the Loan creditor for providing unsecured loan to the assessee and genuineness of the transactions"?

Before us, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue submits that during the course of assessment proceedings, AO has issued summons u/s 133(6) of the Act on 08.01.2015 to the lender to submit details of the loan given to the assessee. In response to which, proper details were not filed by the assessee thus, a notice u/s 131 of the Act was issued to the lender i.e. Shri Rohit Jindal, Proprietor of M/s. Shree Balaji Steels however, the lender had not appeared personally in response to the said notice and sought time. As lender had not appeared in person and the AO from the details found that the income declared by the lender was only of INR 10,89,220/- which is on the lower side and therefore, he was of the view that the creditworthiness of the lender is not established. Ld. CIT DR further submits that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions without appreciating the fact that the lender had failed to appear before the AO thus, his identity is also doubtful. Moreover, the creditworthiness is also doubtful looking to the lower income declaration. The assessee is a Private Limited Company and it cannot be accepted that such a huge loan is given by a person who has no acquaintance with the Directors of the assessee company and therefore, it is the duty of the Director of the assessee company to produce the lender before the AO for examination. Under these circumstances, Ld.CIT DR supports the order of the AO and requested for the confirmation of the order passed by the AO and restoration of the additions so made. Alternatively, ld. CIT DR placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-II vs M/s. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. in ITA No.525/2014 vide order dated 11.03.2015 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that “where the AO has failed to make proper inquiries, the matter should be remitted back to the AO for verification and accordingly, prayed for the remand to the file of AO.

On the other hand, Ld.AR for the assessee vehemently supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and submits that during the year under consideration, the assessee received total amount of INR 10,70,00,000/- out of which INR 6,17,00,000/- were repaid however, there was an opening balance of INR 12,52,23,311/- therefore, the closing balance was remained at INR 18,00,10,170/- for which the addition was made. He further submits that in terms of provision of section 68 of the Act, the credits received during the year could only be considered and as submitted above, the total loan of INR 10,70,00,000/- received during the year only as against which the addition was made of INR 18,00,10,170/-. Thus, the addition should not be made in excess of the amount received during the year. With regard to three ingredients of section 68 of the Act viz. identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the lender, Ld.AR submits that all the evidences were filed to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions by filing confirmation, ledger account of the lender, bank statement, ITR and Audit Report including financial statements of the lender. Ld.AR further submits that the lender is proprietor of M/s. Shree Balaji Steels who is a consignment agent of Jindal Stainless Ltd. and regularly receives substantial amounts from sales made on consignment basis which are duly credited in its regular bank account out of which funds were given to the assessee as loan. He further submits that lender in response to summons issued u/s 133(6) of the Act, had filed the relevant details and merely because he had not personally appeared before AO in response to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act, it cannot be held that person is non-existent or the transaction is not genuine. Ld.AR further submits that Ld.CIT(A) after considering these facts and also after making verification of the availability of the funds in the hands of the lender by examining the bank statement of lender, reached to the conclusion that the lender has creditworthiness and therefore, deleted the additions made. Under these circumstances, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that the order of Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be uphold. Ld.AR also filed the submission which reads as under:-

“During the year under consideration, the assessee had taken interest bearing unsecured loan of Rs.10,70,00,000 from Shri Rohit Jindal Prop. M/s Shree Balaji Steels ('the lender'). There was an opening balance of outstanding loan of Rs. 12,52,23,311. Further, the assessee had, during the year under consideration, repaid Rs.6,17,00,000 resulting in balance outstanding of Rs. 18,00,10,170. 6. It is respectfully submitted that Shri Rohit Jindal Prop. M/s Shree Balaji Steels is a consignment agent of Jindal Stainless Ltd., regularly receiving substantial amounts on account of sales made on consignment basis. The said commission income is duly disclosed by the lender in the return of income and is regularly assessed to tax over the years. Copy of the month-wise details of amounts received by the lender from Jindal Stainless Ltd on account of sale of goods aggregating to Rs.415.29 crores during the year under consideration is placed at pages 246-248 of the PB.

To substantiate the identity & creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the said transaction(s), the assessee duly placed on record the following documents before the assessing officer:  Name, PAN and address of the lender- Refer pages 44 of PB;  Ledger account of the lender for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 in the books of the assessee wherein all the transaction stands recorded with opening balance of Rs.12,52,23,311 and closing balance of Rs.18,00,10,170 - Refer pages 46 of PB;  Ledger account of the assessee in the books of Shri Rohit Jindal Prop. M/s Shree Balaji Steels alongwith confirmation wherein all the transaction stands recorded. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the assessee has in fact repaid outstanding loan to the extent of Rs.6.17 crores during the year, while has only received Rs.10.17 crore (not Rs.18,00,10,170 as alleged by the assessing officer) - Refer pages 47 of PB;  Details of Interest on said loan booked in the books of the assessee alongwith the details of Tax deducted at source, challan of tax paid - Refer pages 48-49 of PB;  Copy of acknowledgment of income tax return filed by the lender for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring total taxable income of about Rs.10.89 lakhs, audited financial statements of the lender for the year ending on 31.03.2012 - Refer page 53-58 of PB;  Bank account statements of the lender for the period 01.01.2012 to 31.03.2012, clearly substantiating the loan entries - Refer pages 59-201 of PB;  Tax Audit Report in Form 3CB-CD of the lender for the assessment year 2012-13-Refer pages 202-211 of PB;  Bank account statements of the assessee for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, clearly substantiating the loan entries - Refer pages 249-251 of PB.

The assessee duly received loan from the lender in earlier years as well; no adverse inference has ever been drawn by the Revenue qua the said transactions in completed scrutiny assessments. The assessee has duly placed on record assessment order passed in the case of the assessee for the immediately subsequent year i.e. assessment year 2013-14-Refer page 273 of PB.”

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the solitary issue is with regard to the addition of INR 18,00,10,170/- being an amount of loan outstanding at the end of the year received from Shri Rohit Jindal, Proprietor of M/s. Shree Balaji Steel. The AO further disallowed the amount of interest paid on such loan totaling to INR 1,05,40,955/-. From the facts of the case, it is seen that during the year under appeal assessee has received total sum of INR 10,70,00,000/-. It is settled law that sum credited/received during the year could only be questioned for the purpose of section 68 of the Act and thus no addition could be made for the balance amount which is the opening balance brought forward from earlier year.

With regard to the amount of loan of Rs. 10,70,00,000/- received during the year, the AO issued summons u/s 133(6) of the Act to the lender who in response, filed copy of ITR, Balance Sheet, Audit Report, ledger account of the assessee in its books of accounts, bank statements reflecting the payments made to the assessee. Solely for the reason that the lender had not appeared personally before the AO in response to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act, the AO doubted the identity of the lender. It is also seen that the lender had declared commission income from the consignment sales and for the year under appeal, total income declared by the lender was INR 10,89,220/- thus, the AO alleged that the lender has no creditworthiness to give such a huge amount of loan to the assessee. It is further seen that though there was a closing balance of INR 18,00,10,170/- of the unsecured loans taken from Shri Rohit Jindal however, the assessee had repaid a sum of INR 6,17,00,000/- to the lender. Since all the transactions were routed through banking channels therefore, genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the fact that the assessee has discharged the burden to prove the identity of the lender by filing its ITR and for establishing creditworthiness, the financial statement and bank statement submitted where the sufficient funds were available before making loan to the assessee. Under these circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO. The observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.2.1 to 5.2.9 are as under:-

2.1. “I have considered the Assessment Order and the judgements relied upon by AO, the Grounds of Appeal, the submissions made by the assessee, the Paper Book filed during the proceedings along with the various judgements relied on by the assessee.

2.2. It is noticed that the assessee has availed the Unsecured Loan from one Shri Rohit Jindal Prop. Shree Balaji Steels during the regular course of business. The Ledger Account shows Unsecured Loan availed during the current Financial Year 2011-12 amounting to Rs. 10,70,00,000/- and repaid an amount of Rs.6,17,00,000/- during the same Financial Year 2011-12, upon including the Opening Outstanding Balance of Rs.12,52,23,311/- and the interest costs Rs.1,05,40,955/- [(-) 10,54,096 TDS] the Closing Balance of Unsecured Loan comes to Rs.18,00,10,170/-, which has been considered as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act by AO and added to the Returned Income of the Assessee. Apparently therefore, the entire sum of Rs. 18,00,10,170/- is not availed during the specified Financial Year 2011-12 relevant to Asst. Year 2012-13. The key tests to sustain additions as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act lies in Three Parameters/Conditions comprising of Identity of Loan Creditor, Genuineness of transaction and the Creditworthiness of the Loan Creditor. Let us examine and test the transaction on each of the parameter/condition on the facts of the case.

2.3. The Assessee is an incorporated body corporate as a Private Limited engaged into the business of Securities, Shares and F&O Trading having earned Revenue of Rs.50,74,202/- (Previous Year: Rs.1,33,21,386/-). The Assessee has also earned Gross Rental Income of Rs.1,02,00,000/- which is accepted by the AO in the Assessment Order dated 16/03/2015 for the relevant Asst. Year 2012-13 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The Funds of the impugned Loan account are received in the regular Bank Account No.02922000005615 maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd; Rajouri Garden, New Delhi through the proper Banking Channel. And as per Audited Financial Statements, these funds availed from Unsecured Loan have been utilized to Retire the earlier Debt availed from Ganga Ferro Alloys Private Limited, which is not disputed by the Ld. AO. Hence, all the business transactions and the trail of Unsecured Loan Funds are conducted through single Bank Account No.02922000005615 maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd; Rajouri Garden, New Delhi through the proper Banking Channel, which is disclosed to the Department. The entire unsecured loan has also been squared up and repaid in subsequent year(s), which is accepted by the department in assessee own case vide Assessment Order dated 25.02.2016 for the Asst. Year 2013-14 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, considering the entirety of facts, the Genuineness of transactions on these counts in my considered view can be accepted.

2.4 Coming to the Identity of the Loan Creditor Shri Rohit Jindal Prop. Shree Balaji Steels is engaged into Consignment Sales and Commission Agent of Stainless Steel Flats stated to be part of the Established Industrial Group. The Notice(s) and Summons are duly served and acknowledged. The Loan Creditor is conducting business operations through principal Bank Account No.01422320005504 maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd; Sandoz House, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 which shows substantial business transactions, which is fully disclosed to the department, regularly assessed to Income Tax, which is not disputed by Ld. AO at any point of time. The Loan Creditor has submitted vide letter dated 19.01.2015 the requisite information like PAN, Copy of Return of Income, Computation of Total Income, Copy of Ledger Account of the Assessee in their Books of Accounts for the period from April, 2011 to March, 2012, Copy of P&L A/c. and Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 2012, Copy of Tax Audit Report for the Asst. Year:2012-13 and Copy of Bank Statement extracted as on relevant dates when the lender has advanced money to assessee. The substantial banking operations cannot be conducted without Banking Norms and KYC Compliances. Therefore, the Existence and Identity of Loan Creditor is also established and settled.

2.5. The Last Parameter of Creditworthiness for Loan Creditor is required to be gauged and tested on the nature of transaction on the facts of the case. The AO has suspected the impugned transactions on low income of Rs. 10,89,220/- offered by Loan Creditor Shri Rohit Jindal Prop. Shree Balaji Steels for the Asst. Year 2012-13. The AO suspicion grown further, when Loan Creditor although for a reason missed the date of personal appearance on 19.02.2015 pursuant to summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act. The Assessee Company was again asked to produce Loan Creditor Shri Rohit Jindal on 05.03.2015, this also failed. This resulted AO to conclude dubious nature of transaction having emanated from net-work of Entry Providers in the process applied various case laws (although distinguishable on the facts of case) in concluding unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and added the sum of Rs. 18,00,10,170/- (Including Opening Outstanding Balance Rs.12,52,23,311/-) to the Returned Income/(Loss) of Rs.(44,46,842/-). No doubt that the Loan Creditor has failed to personally appear before the AO in the assessment proceedings and submit to the established procedures and process of law. But that itself cannot be open for Ld. AO to conclude the dubious nature of transactions without any further inquiry bring about any evidence on record contrary to information and material available on record. It may be noted suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake character of tangible proof or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. There is absence of live link between the evidence available on record and conclusion drawn for additions made of the unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The Legal Maxim Audi alteram partem is amongst the fundamental requirement that the law and procedure must be of a fair, just and reasonable kind. The principle of natural justice comes into force when no prejudice is caused to anyone in any administrative action. The principle of Audi Alteram Partemis doctrine states the no one shall be condemned unheard.

2.6. The appellant has demonstrated the availability of sufficient bank balance(s) from the Bank Statements filed from Page No.13 to 155 of the Paper Book, on each of the transaction day for the period of 16/02/2012 to 29/03/2012 loan advanced during the Financial Year 2011-12, which is tabulated as under:

2.7. Therefore, the bank statement clearly establishes the creditworthiness of the Loan Creditor. The appellant on Page No.287 of Paper Book has further disclosed that the amount of Rs. 18,00,10,170/- the impugned cash credit assumed by AO, includes Opening Balance of Rs.12,52,23,311/- as on 01.04.2011 and during the Financial Year 2011-12 the appellant has had availed only Loans aggregating to Rs. 10,70,00,000/. The appellant has further stated on Page No.283 and 284 that the entire unsecured loan of Rs. 18,00,10,170/- is squared up and repaid much before the passing the current Assessment Order on 16.03.2015, for the Asst. Year 2012-13. The Loan Balance Outstanding as on 31.03.2013 is just 44,02,510/-which is assessed and accepted by AO (Page 201 of Paper Book)in the subsequent year vide Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) for the Asst. Year 2013-14 passed on 25/02/2016. Thus, the transactions with same Loan Creditor Shri Rohit Jindal Prop. Shree Balaji Steels were accepted in appellant own case in subsequent Asst. Year:2013-14 The Appellant has further stated on page no.284 the impugned Loan Balance is NIL as on 31.03.2014, thus entire Unsecured Loan of Rs. 18,00,10,170/- is squared up and repaid in subsequent years much before passing this Assessment Order for AY 2012-13. 5.2.8.The assessee has pleaded that The appellant has discharged his initial burden by filing all the relevant documents. The Lender has filed its response pursuant to notice u/s 136(6). Lender has also filed his reply in response to notice u/s 131 seeking further time. The appellant has again filed all the documents again vide its letter dated 02.03.2015. The AO has not rebutted any of the documents filed by us and rejected the same without any reason. The AO has also not proved that the money has moved from the appellant to the lender.

2.9. I concur with the appellant claim as there appears sufficient bank balance(s) to advance the loan on each occasion besides, the Loan Creditor has established business network with substantial business transactions, the AO has not produced any evidence neither any traces are found for Jamakharchi or Accommodation Entries, the unsecured loan was subsequently squared up and repaid, the transactions with the Loan Creditor are accepted in subsequent Asst. Year 2013-14 in Assessee's own case. The doubts cast on AO mind purely on two counts (i) Low Income base of Loan Creditor. (ii) Non-appearance for personal hearing raised the suspicion cannot be sole and sufficient ground for additions or disallowances as AO failed to produce any cogent and legally admissible evidence on record nor any inquiry or inspection conducted. The case laws relied upon by the AO purely relates to Share Capital which is non-refundable in its class and character. However, in the present case Unsecured Loan belongs to different class, repayable on demand in character, which has been squared up and repaid in the immediate succeeding year(s), which is accepted by the department. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 18,00,10,170/- on Unexplained Cash Credit u/s. 68 of Act is directed to be deleted on merits and case laws relied upon by the appellant. These Grounds Nos, 2 and 2.1 to 2.5of Appeal are allowed.”

The perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A) revealed that the appellant has proved creditworthiness of the creditor by submitting its audited annual accounts along with relevant bank statements of the lender. The Assessing Officer has not proved that any cash was deposited prior to giving cheque to appellant. Further even though appellant was not required to prove sources of source, the bank statement submitted by appellant clearly reflects such sources which is not doubted by A.O. nor any inquiry has been made by A.O. for concluding that loan received by appellant is accommodative loan. The A.O. has not doubted the utilisation of such loan taken by appellant and such loan has been used to repay other loans and finally the alleged loan was also repaid in subsequent Assessment Years after alongwith interest after deducting due TDS as per law. It is also relevant to state that during the year itself, repayment of INR 6.17 crores was made which has been ignored and also the fact that the loan was finally repaid in subsequent years was also ignored while holding the loans as bogus.

At this juncture, we first refer to the provision of section 68 of the Act:- Cash credits. 68. “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year : Provided that where the sum so credited consists of loan or borrowing or any such amount, by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless,—

A bare reading of Section 68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum received during the previous year; and the assessee offer no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing Officer is not satisfactory, it is only then the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The expression "the assessee offer no explanation" means where the assessee offer no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. It is true that the opinion of the Assessing Officer for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion.

Coming to the facts of the present case in the line of the above proposition of law, from the perusal of details filed by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee filed the following documentary evidences:- (i) Confirmed Copy of account statement; (ii) Bank statement of the lender; (iii) Audited financial statement of the lender; (iv) Tax Audit report of the lender; (v) Copy of ITR acknowledgement of the lender; and 13. Further the compliance was made by the lender in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act issued by the AO however, due to ill health, personal attendance was not made before the AO in response to the summon issued u/s 131 of the Act and a request for adjournment of 15 days was made which not acceded to by the AO.

It is also relevant that an amendment is made vide Finance Act, 2022 wherein second proviso to section 68 of the Act is added so as to provide that the nature and source of any sum, whether in the form of loan or borrowing, or any other liability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or loan provider. However, this additional onus to prove satisfactorily the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a well-regulated entity, i.e., it is a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company registered with SEBI. This amendment has taken effect from 1stApril, 2023 and accordingly applies in relation to the assessment year 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years. The year before us is AY 2012-13 thus, this amendment is not applicable.

As observed above, the requirement of explaining ‘Source’ of ‘Source’ in respect of loans is applicable from A.Y. 2023-24 and subsequent years. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of co-ordinate Delhi bench of ITAT dated 31.05.2022 in the case of M/s Mall Hotels Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA No. 2688/DEL/2014). The coordinate Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v Smt. Prem Anand (ITA No. 3514/Del/2014) vide its decision dated 13.04.2017 has held that amendment made in section 68 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2013 empowers the A.O. to examine source of source in case of share application money / share capital / share premium from 01.04.2013 and this amendment does not give power to the A.O. to examine source of source of non-share capital cases.

Regarding surrounding circumstances, it is observed that while making addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditor but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence and substance in contention. The Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to establish that the sources in the hands of loan creditor is non-genuine, rather the lender established that he is the consignment agents of Jindal Steel and always have large funds from the sale of consignment goods which were utilized for giving loan to the assessee. Merely because he has shown less income, loan taken by appellant from him cannot be held to be bogus or unexplained when the assessee has demonstrated that the lender has sufficient balance in the bank when the loan was given. It is well-settled position of law that no matter how strong suspicion is, it cannot take place of the evidence. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence showing that in fact, appellant has given cash in lieu of unsecured loan taken, merely on the basis of suspicion, no addition can be made for which reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Daulatram Rawatmull (1964) 53 ITR 574 (SC).

The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. Alpha Contech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.3351/Del/2016 vide order dated 28.07.2023 while deleting the additions made by AO by alleging the loan creditors as bogus, has held as under: 7. On careful consideration of above rival submission, first of all, we note that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act, by observing that despite several opportunity the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction and thus could not discharge onus as per requirement of sec 68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) and filed additional evidence under rule 46A of the Rules on which remand report was called wherein the Assessing Officer did not made any adverse comment on the additional documentary evidence of assessee and also admitted that the lender company received amount of Rs. 7,30,62,000/- as share premium reserve during immediately preceding assessment year and amount of loan of Rs. 3.60 crore advanced to the assessee during present assessment year was from the said reserve amount. The remand report of the Assessing Officer supported the case of assessee which was based on the strength of additional evidence filed by the assessee without raising any doubt or discrepancy therein.

We also find and appropriate to reproduce the relevant operative part of first appellate order as follows:-

However, it is also seen from the P & L Account filed in this case that this company has no apparent business activity during the relevant period, i.e. during the FY 2010-11, and it has declared a nominal sum of Rs.35,600/- as Consultancy / Commission income. This company has also furnished a copy of the intimation us 143(1) in its case, issued by CPC, Bangalore, in response to the specific query regarding furnishing copy of assessment order passed in its case for AY 2011-12. 7. As regards the present position of the said money advanced by MIs Fennie Commercial Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant company, it has been stated that they have not received any shares from M/s Alfa Contech Private Limited till date and the said Sum is lying as Loans & Advances in their books. However, this company has not furnished copy of its latest IT filed as well as copy of Audit Report, Balance Sheet and P & L Account despite being specifically called for in the letter issued us 133(6) to it.

It is also submitted here that as per the Balance Sheet of the appellant company for the AY 2011-12, it has shown a sum of Rs.3.60 crores as "Loans from Body Corporate", as per Schedule 3 annexed to the Balance Sheet and not as Share Application Money. Also, as per details filed by the appellant vide its letter dated 03.02.2014 during the course of the assessment proceedings in its case for AY 2011-12, it has furnished the name of Ms Fennie Commercial Private Limited, PAN AAACF9549A, from whom it had allegedly received unsecured loan of Rs.3.60 crores whereas the said party is showing this Loan & Advance as "Share Application Money".