Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Natkhat Agro Foods Pvt Ltd, took a loan of Rs. 8 lakhs from M/s Marubhumi Enclave Pvt. Ltd., which the Assessing Officer treated as accommodation entries based on a search in the Banka Group. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after the assessee provided all information, including evidence that the loan amounts of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs were taken in 2017 and fully repaid within the same assessment year 2018-2019 through bank accounts.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had properly considered all evidence, including the repayment of the loan through bank accounts during the relevant assessment year. Since the revenue could not dislodge the factual findings of the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the deletion of the addition.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for alleged accommodation entries, when the assessee demonstrated that the loans were taken and repaid within the assessment year through banking channels.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 28.06.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It was submitted by the ld.Sr. DR that the assessee had taken a loan of Rs.8 lakhs from M/s Marubhumi Enclave Pvt. Ltd.. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has treated the loan as accommodation entries, insofar as a search in the case of Banka Group shows that the said group was provided accommodation entries through the said M/s Marubhumi Enclave Pvt. Ltd.. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) in para 7.5.1 of his order took a stand that the assessee has provided all the information and consequently deleted the addition. It was the submission that before 2 ITANo.1737/KOL/2024 deleting the addition, remand report had not been called for from Assessing Officer. 3. In reply, ld. AR drew the attention of the Bench to the confirmation of accounts which reads as follows :-
It was submitted that the assessee had taken loan on 04.05.2027 for Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs on 29.06.2017 and the same had already been repaid immediately during the year itself being on 28.03.2018 for Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs on 29.03.2018. It was the submission that these evidences were before the ld. Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer had not considered the same. It was the submission that these were squared off