ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SKYBRIDGE REAL ESTATES LLP, KOLKATA

It was submitted by the ld. DR that in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.20,25,00,000/- representing two unsecured loans, one of Rs.19,50,00,000/- from Babcock Borsing Ltd. and another of Rs.75,00,000/- from Williamson Financial Services Ltd. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer was of the view that the creditworthiness and genuineness of the said two unsecured lenders were not proved by the assessee. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition. It was the submission that in respect of Babcock Borsing Ltd., the ld. CIT(A) first considered the fact that the loan was of an amount of Rs.19.5 crores but only 1.95 crores. It was the submission that subsequently, the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the two companies were not paper companies or shell companies deleted the addition. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be reversed.

In reply, the ld. AR drew our attention to para 7.6 and 7.9 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the variation from 19.50 to 1.95 was on account of mistake committed by the auditor in the audit report. It was the submission that the corrected audit report has also been filed before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the assessments of both Babcock Borsing Ltd. and Williamson Financial Services Ltd. for the assessment year 2018-19 which is also the impugned assessment year before us had been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act as has been mentioned in para 7.9 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue may be confirmed. 2 C.O. No.38/Kol/2025 Skybridge Real Estates LLP 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) more specifically at para 7.6 shows that the figure of loan in the case of Babcock Borsing Ltd. is not 19.85 crores but 1.95 crores. This error has also been corrected by the assessee by filing revised audit report. Admittedly, the balance sheet of the assessee also shows same amount of Rs.1.95 crores. In regard to addition of Rs.1.95 crores and 75 lakhs deleted by the ld. CIT(A), we find that in para 7.9 of the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessments u/s 143(3) of the Act in respect of both companies have been completed by the Assessing Officer and no adverse interference has been drawn in the said assessment orders. This being so obviously, the identity and creditworthiness of the said companies stand proved. The transactions were done through banking channel and the genuineness of the transactions also stands confirmed. In the circumstances, as the revenue has not able to dislodge any of the findings of fact as arrived by the ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.