RPS INFOLINK PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A) – 8, Delhi, dated 27/06/2024 [hereinafter ‘ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2014-15.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of unexplained cash credit. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of the information that the assessee has not filed its return of income for the year under consideration and has received professional receipts of Rs.75,000/- , notices were issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act pursuant to which it filed its return of income. 3.1. While scrutinising the return of income, the AO notice that the assessee has shown loan from its director of Rs.1,25,000/- but in the 2 balance sheet the loan has been shown at Rs.10,000/- only. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of the loan and on receiving no plausible reply, the AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions and made addition of Rs.1,25,000/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and strongly contended that the AO has made the addition without considering the fact that the loan was taken from one of the directors from which there was an opening balance of Rs.72,000/- and additional loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- was taken during the year and the substantial part was repaid during the year under consideration and the closing balance was only Rs.10,000/-. 4.1. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the ld. CIT(A) who was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to substantiate through any documentary evidence, the opening balance of Rs.72,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) was further of the opinion that bank statement does not prove that the said transactions are in the nature of loan from the directors. The additions made by the AO were confirmed. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee once again reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. The ld. D/R strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the loan taken from Shri Promod Soni, happens to be a loan from one of the directors of the company and, therefore, there is no question of establishing the identity of Promod Soni. The allegation of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of opening balance is without any basis and appears to be absurd inasmuch 3 as the only way to show the opening balance is by submitting the copy of the ledger account. The ledger account of Promod Soni is as under:-