JCIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. AWIFS SPACE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMAJoint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Room No. 153A, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110002 Vs. M/s AWFIS Space Solutions Pvt. Ltd. C-28-29, Kissan Bhawan Qutum Institutional Area, New Delhi- 110016 थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AANCA1175G Appellant .. Respondent
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated
08.03.2023 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter
P a g e | 2
M/s AWFIS Space Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN &
Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050521828(1) arising out of the order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Circle 3(2), Delhi for AY:
2017-18. 2. Heard and perused the records. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the AO examined the transaction of issue of 1,54,04,354 equity shares amounting to Rs.42,80,60,140/- to 4 shareholders and the submission and the documentary evidences filed by the assessee were not found sufficient and addition was made in regard to one of the shareholders namely one of these company, namely, M/s RAB Enterprises
(India) Pvt. Ltd. under Section 68 of the Act. The Revenue has challenged the deletion of Rs.21,05,01,150/- made by the AO on account of share capital/share premium received by the assessee from issue of shares to M/s
RAB Enterprises (India) Private Limited (investor company).
During the appellate proceedings assessee had submitted additional evidences substantiating the source of funds in the hands of this investor
P a g e | 3
M/s AWFIS Space Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) company establishing that this investor company had received funds from India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. (IHFL), Reliance Capital Ltd. (RCL) and Bindu Kapoor. Remand report was called from the AO and admitting additional evidence and taking rejoinder to the remand report, Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition for which Revenue is in appeal.
4. AO has also made addition relating to disallowance of Rs. 64,44,038/- being difference in rate of deprecation as claimed by assessee @15% and as allowed by AO @10% as the assessee has made an addition of furniture and fixture on which depreciation is allowable @ 10%. Which is allowed by ld.
CIT(A) @ 10%.
5. Now revenue has raised following grounds:
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.21,05,01,150/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that during the assessment proceedings the AO has established that the loan received by the assessee is not a genuine loan and the main ingredient of section 68 i.e. creditworthiness of the parties from whom unsecured loan received and genuineness of transaction is not satisfied ?.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,05,01,150/- without appreciating the fact stated in the remand report by the AO that the party from whom the loan was received is not a genuine party and, accordingly, it was not a genuine business loan but it was an accommodation entry received by the assessee ?.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the P a g e | 4 M/s AWFIS Space Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) case of PCIT vs. M/s N R Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 134/2012 dated 21.12.2012 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that an assessee's duty to establish that the amount which the AO proposes to add back us 68 are proper sourced, does not cease by merely furnishing the name, address and PAN or relying of entries in a