DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAIC INTEGRATED SPONGE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 158/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 December 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)6 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had sufficiently explained the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. The AO's grounds for addition were found to be insufficient.

What were the facts?

The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions made on account of unsecured loans for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated loans as unexplained money, suspecting accommodation entries due to immediate fund transfers by lenders.

What were the issues?

Whether the unsecured loans were genuine, and if the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, AR
For Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Hearing: 19.11.2024Pronounced: 09.12.2024

These are appeals preferred by the Revenue challenging the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 12.12.2023 & 08.12.2023 for the AY 2014-15 &2015-16.

2.

Issue raised in ground no. 1 in & 159/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 2.00 crore & 5.35 cr. respectively by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account unsecured loans.

4.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, which is reproduced in para 4.3 as under:-

“4.3(a) I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission of the appellant. Assessment order does not provide sufficient reasons for making the addition u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. Only general comments regarding low income, huge reserves & surplus and nominal fixed assets of the creditors have made in the assessment order. Another point which has been held against the ITA No. 159/Kol/2024A.Y.2015-16

6.

The issue raised in this appeal is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 158/Kol/2014-15. During the year the assessee has raised unsecured loans of Rs. 5,35,00,000/-from four loan creditors namely Streelex Electrocast Pvt Ltd. Rs. 25,00,000/-, Mehra Securities Pvt Ltd Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, Ramdiha Merdcantile Pvt Ltd. 2,00,00,000/- and Gagan Ferrotech Ltd(Trade advance). The remaining facts qua these loans are same and ld CIT(A) discussed the facts and reasons for deletion of addition in great detail in the appellate order and therefore our decision in would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal as well. The appeal of revenue is dismissed.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.12.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →