DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. A P TRADING CO, MUMBAI

Further, while analyzing the audited financial statements of Prarthna Pvt. Ltd, AO noted that the company had negative net worth and had claimed a loss of Rs.29.38 Cr in its return of income filed for the A.Y 2018-19. The company had also not furnished copy of bank statement reflecting the relevant payment entries and explanation regarding the sources of the funds out of which the loans were claimed to have been advanced to the assessee. The ld. AO again required the assessee to explain the genuineness and creditworthiness of all the three parties, the assessee filed its reply and explanation vide letter dated 01/06/2021 which has been reproduced by the ld. AO in the impugned assessment order. The assessee had also intimated that some of the companies had filed insolvency petition before the NCLT at the time when further details were asked. The ld. AO accordingly held that since documentary evidences have not been filed to prove the genuineness of the loan given by the assessee and also could not explain the purpose of taking the loans. After analyzing the credentials and financials of one of the parties Prarthna Pvt. Ltd. AO observed that it has a negative net worth. He then issued summons to Prarthna Pvt. Ltd for production of books of accounts and furnishing of explanation as CO No.67/Mum/2024 A P Trading Co. to the source of funds for advancing the loan to the assessee before the ld. AO. The assessee’s representative furnished the explanation regarding the source of funds in the amounts received from Prarthna Pvt. Ltd., however, AO noted that complete details have not been provided. Their loans have been advanced are partly from the funds borrowed from the other parties and entire chain of flow of funds have not been provided. He observed that funds have been transferred directly from one Group Company to other group company and there is funds transfer from one entity to other to prove the source of the loan. He further observed that assessee has failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties by not furnishing any correspondence, emails, copy of agreements, fund messages exchanged before the loan was received. Further, there are very frequent debit and credit transactions involving these amounts between the assessee group and Prarthna Pvt. Ltd within a short span of time. Ld. AO further inferred that there could be an instance of the first layer source company receiving the funds from other company which may be involved bogus sale purchase transaction and substantial funds have been claimed to have been received by Prarthna Pvt. Ltd. from another private limited company M/s. Jalpac Traders and this company was involved in bogus sales / purchase transaction with many companies, summary of which has given in the assessment order from pages 12-14. Thus, Ld. AO held that source of funds in the hands of Prarthna Pvt. Ltd. might be linked to bogus purchase and a sale which in turn is linked to mis-use of bank funds.

Similarly, with regard to other two companies, ld. AO noted that both these companies are incorporated in the same year having same address and these companies had filed insolvency petition within three years of incorporation, thus, he inferred that these are paper / shell companies to route the funds and the loan be still outstanding in the subsequent assessment years. Similar observation and finding have been given by him for these two companies. Accordingly, the ld. AO held that assessee has not been able to prove the creditworthiness of lenders and the genuineness of the transaction and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Accordingly, he treated the amount of Rs.90,43,00,000/- credited in the bank account as unexplained cash credit which has been added u/s.68.

Before the ld. CIT (A) all the documents and evidences were filed alongwith additional grounds challenging the validity of proceedings u/s.153A. On this, ld. CIT (A) called for the remand report of the ld. AO. In so far as legal issue raised before him, ld. CIT (A) after considering the remand report has dismissed the assessee’s grounds on which assessee has filed cross objections.

In so far as merits are concerned, ld. CIT (A) analysed all the documents and explanation furnished by the assessee, inquiry conducted by the ld. AO and observations and finding of the ld. AO qua each of the parties in the assessment order. On each and every detail he has given his finding. The relevant discussions and finding with regard to each of three parties vis-a –vis the material placed on record are as under:-

Prarthna Private Limited:- 24.1 The Assessing officer has added loan received from this company of Rs 30,18,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. The appellant has submitted that this company is assessed to tax with Income lax Officer Ward-8(3) Kolkata Hence, the identity of the party is proved. Regarding creditworthiness, the appellant has submitted that the assessment in case of M/s Prarthna Pvt. Ltd for AY 2017- 18 has been completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by ITO Ward-8(3), Kolkata on 23.12.2019 wherein no addition has been made This order is passed after the date of search action on the appellant, that is 17.04.2018, and hence, it clearly proves creditworthiness of the party, as no adverse inference has been drawn by the A.O Regarding genuineness of the transactions, the appellant has submitted that there are regular transactions between the appellant and Prarthna Pvt. Ltd and the entire loan has been repaid in the financial year 2020-21 24.2 Before me, in support of its claim, the appellant has submitted following documents i.Ledger account of M/s Prarthna Pvt. Ltd in the books of the appellant. ii.Loan confirmation letters from M/s Prarthna Pvt. Ltd. iii. Bank statement of appellant reflecting loan transactions iv Bank statement of M/S Prarthna Pvt. Ltd v.Copy of Income tax returns filed by M/S Prarthna Pvt. Ltd along with the copy of audit report. vi Copy of Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in case of M/S Prarthna Pvt. Ltd for A.Y 2017-18. 24.3 From the perusal of ledger account, it is seen that there are regular transactions of loan between the appellant firm and M/s Prarthna Pvt. Ltd. The details are as under:

Kyora Mettaliks Pvt. Ltd :- 25.1 The Assessing officer has added loan received from this party of Rs. 34.45 crores. Regarding the identity, the appellant has submitted that the company is assessed with National E- Assessment Center, Delhi. Hence the identity is proved. Regarding CO No.67/Mum/2024 A P Trading Co. creditworthiness, it is submitted that the assessment order in this case for A.Y 2018-19 has been passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act on 17/05/2021 by the National E- 'Assessment Center accepting the returned income. Regarding genuineness, it is submitted that there' are 'regular transactions of loan with this company and the entire loan has been repaid in the F.Y. 2019-20. 25.2 Before me, the appellant has submitted following documents in support of its claim: i. Ledger account of M/s Kyora Mettaliks Pvt. Ltd the books of the appellant. ii. Loan confirmation letters from M/s Kyora Mettaliks Pvt Ltd. iii. Bank statement of appellant reflecting loan transactions. iv. Bank statement of M/s Kyora Mettaliks Pvt ltd. v. Copy of income tax returns filed by M/s Kyora Mettaliks Pvt ltd along with the copy of audit report. vi. Copy of Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in case of M/s Kyora Mettaliks Pvt ltd for A.Y 2018-19 25.3 From the perusal of ledger account, it is that there are regular transactions of loan between the appellant firm and M/s Kyora Mettaliks Pvt. Ltd. The details of the same are as under: A.Y. Opening Loan taken Loan Repaid Closing Balance during the during the balance year year 2018-19 NIL 34,45,00,000 7,67,00,000 26,78,00,000 2019-20 26,78,00,000 NIL 13,20,15,000 13,57,85,000 2020-21 13,57,85,000 NIL 13,57,85,000 NIL It can be seen from the above that the appellant has repaid loan of Rs.7.67 crores in the FY. 2017-18 itself and thereafter repaid Rs. 13,20,15,000/- in the FY 2018-19 and the remaining amount of Rs. 13,57,85,000/- has been repaid in the FY 2019-20 Thus, the entire loan has been repaid in the FY 2019-20.

Pakhul Traders Pvt. Ltd :- 26.1 The A.O has made addition of Rs. 25.80 crores u/s 68 of the IT Act During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has submitted that Pakhul Traders Pvt. Ltd is assessed to tax at National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi, and hence the identity is proved. Regarding creditworthiness, it is submitted that the assessment for A.Y 2018- 19 has been completed in this case u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on 25 02 2021 by National E-Assessment Centre which is after the date of search on the appellant. Regarding genuineness, it is submitted itted that the loan has been repaid in the FY 2020- 21 26.2 Before me, in support of its claim, the appellant has submitted following documents. i Ledger account of M/s Pakhul Traders Pvt. Ltd in the books of the appellant. ii.Loan confirmation letters from M/s Pakhui Traders Pvt. Ltd. iii. Bank statement of appellant reflecting loan transactions. iv.Bank statement of M/s Pakhul Traders Pvt. Ltd v Copy of Income tax returns filed by M/s Pakhul Traders Pvt. Ltd along with the copy of audit report. vii. Copy of Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in case of M/s Pakhul Traders Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y 2018-19.

From the above discussion, it can be seen that in the present case, the loans have been accepted through banking channels and have also been repaid through the banking channels. There are several judicial decisions

We have heard both the parties and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as voluminous details furnished before us in three volumes of paper book. Before us, ld. Counsel stated that all the three parties have responded to the notices issued by the ld. AO u/s.133(6) furnishing all the relevant documents and the date of submissions and the nature of documents furnished by these parties directly to the ld. AO are as under:- DATE OF DATE OF NATURE OF SUBMISSION NOTICE SUBMISSION A] PRARTHNA PRIVATE LIMITED 22-04-2021 26-04-2021 Notice u/s 133(6) received from The Learned AO Central Circle 7(1) Mumbai Submitted reply to above notice of following:- a) Copy of Income Tax Return Acknowledgement, Annual Report and Tax Audit report for the AY 2018-19. b) Copy of Balance Confirmation for the AY 2018-19 c) Copy of ledger accounts for the F.Y. 2017-18 18-06-2021 22-06-2021 Notice received u/s 131 of the Act, the detailed reply submitted by Mittal Agarwal & Co Chartered 24-06-2021 a) Copy of Letter Authority. b) Bank Statement highlighted transaction with M/s A. P Trading Co c) Ledger Account d) Confirmation of Accounts, Copy of ITR Ack. And Balance Sheet B. Kyora Mettaliks Pvt. Ltd :- 22-04-2024 26-04-2024 Reply letter Submitted with following documents 31-05-2021 a) Copy of ITR Acknowledgment, Audited Accounts and Tax Audit Report b) Balance confirmation c) Ledger accounts C. Pakhul Traders Pvt. Ltd :- 22-04-2024 26-04-2024 Reply letter Submitted with following documents 31-05-2021 d) Copy of ITR Acknowledgment, Audited Accounts and Tax Audit Report e) Balance confirmation f) Ledger accounts

One very important fact Ld. Counsel stressed that in the case of all the three parties, assessment order has been completed u/s. 143(3) for the same assessment year and that to be after the date of search wherein no such adverse inference or addition has been made with regard to the source of the funds. This fact has also been noted by the ld. CIT (A) for each of the parties. Thus, assessee has not only discharged the burden for proving the source of loan but also source of the source.

On the other hand ld. DR after referring to the various observations of the ld. AO submitted that the source of funds in the hands of the parties where inter-transfer of funds from other group companies and there are layering of companies and the source of funds are strange in providing bogus purchase and sales. Notices given by the AO for each of the party have neither been rebutted nor have been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. Thus, the order of the ld. AO should be confirmed. 12 We have perused various documents and annexures including income tax returns, copy of balance confirmations and bank statements of the three parties highlighting the transaction of loan received by the assessee from the said three parties, provided in the paper book before us from pages 1 to 163, which also contains relevant bank statement of the lender companies and the source of funds for each company shown in their audited financial statement and balance sheet. It is not the case of the ld. CO No.67/Mum/2024 A P Trading Co. AO that in any of the case the some kind of cash has been deposited, albeit, the allegation is that there are transfers of funds from the group companies. From the perusal of the balance sheet of Prarthna Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that it has declared Revenue from Iron & Steel Products of Rs.214,11,35,742/- during the year and other income of Rs.6,88,08,516/-. Apart from that there are inter-corporate loans and unsecured loans for more than Rs.31.92 Crores. Similarly, from the perusal of the bank statement, it is seen that there are huge credit entries and regular debits / withdrawals for the purpose of business and also entries of loan given to the assessee. These loans have been repaid mostly in the subsequent years which have also been noted by the ld. CIT (A) in the order as incorporated above. Thus, in most of the cases all the loans have been repaid back up till A.Y. 2020-21 and there was no closing balance.

Once the ld. AO himself has carried out enquiry u/s. 133(6) and u/s.131 and all these parties have directly given to the AO their bank statement, confirmation letters, copy of ledger account, copy of income tax returns and audited accounts and most importantly they have also given their assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) for the same assessment year, wherein, no adverse inference has been drawn and neither the source of funds in the balance sheet have been doubted. If ld. AO is alleging that source of funds in these companies are doubtful, then how in the scrutiny assessment proceedings for each of the companies after the search, the same has been accepted and there is no reference of any material or information discussed CO No.67/Mum/2024 A P Trading Co. either in the assessment orders of the respective companies or any tangible material had been brought on record that the source of these funds are some accommodation entries. It is not a case that some entry provider has provided entry of loan for couple of years and the amounts have been repaid. Even if the source of funds in the hands of the company are from the group companies, but in so far as these companies are concerned, they have given proof of direct source of the funds reflected in their bank statements. Even otherwise also prior to A.Y.2023-24 there was no requirement in the law to prove the source of the source. In so far as assessee is concerned, the entire onus stands discharged. The aforesaid finding of the ld. CIT (A) has neither been rebutted nor has any tangible material been brought on record to dislodge any of his findings.

The Revenue has mainly harped on the creditworthiness of these companies, however, from their audited accounts and the bank statements it is clearly seen that they have proven the source of the funds and also availability of these funds in their audited accounts and also explained the source of the source, i.e., funds are either coming from their business operation or from the group companies. If ld.AO had any doubt about all these evidences, then he should have carried out further inquiry about the trail and the layering of the funds to find out whether there has been routing of some unaccounted money of the assessee or there is any clandestine transaction. All his findings are based on certain presumption and surmise and guess work to reach to his conclusion to dislodge all the documentary CO No.67/Mum/2024 A P Trading Co. evidences. Even before us nothing has been brought on record to rebut the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) or to show before us that all material and evidences filed before the AO and CIT (A) are liable to be rejected. We are unable to reverse the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) based on proper appreciation of fact and also Department itself has accepted the source of funds in the hands of the lender parties in scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3). Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the additions for the reasons given by him is upheld and the grounds raised