KOSC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In this appeal, assessee is aggrieved against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,18,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan received from loan creditor namely, M/s. Tomorrows Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘TSAPL’) by treating the same as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.

The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee took unsecured loans from various parties. To verify the said loan transactions, the AO issued notices u/s.133(6) to two parties namely, M/s. Kernel Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘KTUPL’) and M/s. TSAPL. Though, M/s. KTUPL responded to the notice and furnished the requisite details confirming the loan transaction, however, no reply was received from the creditor M/s. TSAPL. Though, the Ld. AO made the addition in respect of loans received from the aforesaid two parties treating the same as not genuine, however, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition in respect of the loan transactions with M/s. KTUPL on the basis of the details, evidences and confirmation furnished by the said concern in response to notice issued to it u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in respect of loans received from M/s. TSAPL as there was no reply received from the said party in response to the notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to para 6 of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that it was duly explained before the Ld. CIT(A) that when the assessee approached the said concern namely, M/s. TSAPL and enquired as to why they have not given any response to the notice issued by the AO u/s. 133(6) of the Act, the said party informed that they had not received any notice or letter u/s. 133(6) of the Act from the AO and, therefore, there was no response given by the said party to the AO. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the reason for no reply in response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act by the said party was not intentional rather due to the reason that the said party did not receive any notice in this respect from the AO. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the assessee had duly furnished all the requisite details and documents before the AO to prove the identity and creditworthiness of