M/S. JANTA INTERNATIONAL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(2), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 30/04/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2012-13.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 67,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act by the AO.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 27/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs. 67,26,522/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown unsecured loans of Rs. 5.49 Crores. The assessee was asked to furnish details of unsecured loans. The assessee 2 filed details of unsecured loans. On perusal of the details, the AO noticed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 9,45,32,651/- during the year and repaid loan of Rs.3,64,04,500/- thereby making closing balance of unsecured loans as on 31/03/2012 to Rs. 5.49 Crores. The AO further found that the assessee has paid total interest of Rs. 19,11,234/- on the unsecured loans. 3.1. The assessee was asked to furnish the confirmation from loan parties along with the copies of bank statement and copy of income tax return. On receiving no plausible reply, the AO treated the unsecured loans obtained from the following 12 parties as unexplained cash credit and made the addition of Rs. 67,00,000/- and further disallowed interest of Rs. 6,08,751/- :- 1. Dhanlaxmi J Gangar 2. HimmatlalChheda 3. Kewal Vinod Kenia 4. M D Kanakia (HUF) 5. Naresh Kumar GangjiGangar 6. Neshi L Shah 7. Piyush Jaddvaigangar 8. Pushpaben Gala 9. SharadNagindas Shah 10. SunitaJitendra Shah 11. Mandakini Shard Shah 12. Prateek Clearing Agency 4. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and furnished additional evidence. The ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO. After considering the facts and the submission and the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) was 3 of the opinion that the assessee again failed to file the documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the AO in the remand proceedings and confirmed the additions and also confirmed the disallowance of interest.

Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee had filed all the documentary evidence before the ld. CIT(A) and also during the remand proceedings but the ld. CIT(A) has not taken any cognizance of such documentary evidence.

On perusal of the findings of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the findings are completely silent on the evidence claimed to have been filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and also during the remand proceedings. We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given findings on the evidence furnished by the assessee in respect of each of the 12 parties whose loan were treated as unexplained cash credit. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide each loan creditor on the basis of the documentary evidence filed in respect of such loan credits. It is needless to mention that the ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.