ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JAIDEEP HALWASIYA, KOLKATA

The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the deletion of addition by the ld. CIT (A) of ₹2,35,00,000/- as made by the ld. AO in respect of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The facts in brief are that the during the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO observed that during the year the assessee has taken unsecured loans besides noting that the assessee had opening balance of unsecured loan and the assessee had paid interest on these loans. The assessee was called upon to furnish the details

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to delete the addition in respect of unsecured loans of ₹2,35,00,000/- and also in respect of interest paid of ₹5,65,543/- by recording a factual finding that the assessee has taken these unsecured loans in the normal course of business and these were repaid along with interest through banking channels after deduction of TDS at source. The ld. CIT (A) noted that the assessee is not beneficiary of the said money and therefore, the addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. The ld. CIT (A) further observed that the

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has furnished all the evidences before the ld. AO qua the three unsecured loans raised from three parties as discussed hereinabove. The assessee provided and paid the interest on these loans after tax deducted at source. It is also undisputed that these were repaid in the current and subsequent years. The assessee furnished all the evidences before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the ld. AO has not done any enquiry or pointed out any defects or deficiency in the evidences filed. The ld. CIT (A) correctly appreciated the facts and deleted the addition by recording finding that these loans were taken in the normal course of business and repaid also in the current and subsequent years. We note that the ld. CIT (A) has passed a very detailed and speaking order which is recorded in Para No.5.2.1 to 5.2.11 from page no. 57 to 66 of the appellate order and also relied on the series of decisions and also in case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC). In our opinion, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) does not contain any infirmity and therefore, we have no reason to interfere with the same. Further, in our opinion, if it is established that loans taken by the assessee were rapid then the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, is