Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 1.5.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.2,94,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’).
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust, which declared to have received a loan of Rs.2.94 crore from M/s Nishyam Farms Pvt. Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO required the assessee to produce the lender. Affidavit of one Shri Pankaj Gupta, director of M/s Nishyam Farms Pvt. Ltd., was filed along with a copy of bank account of the company. On a perusal of this bank account, the AO observed that cash of Rs.2,94,90,000/- was deposited on 24.3.2009 and a cheque was issued from such bank account in favour of the assessee on the same date. The AO further observed from the bank account of M/s Nishyam Farms Pvt. Ltd. that there were abnormal cash transactions. Considering this fact, he referred the matter to the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, Unit I. The ADIT, vide letter dated 27.12.2011, reported that M/s Nishyam Farms Pvt. Ltd. received money for share capital, from secured and unsecured loans and the fund flow was in the form of cash in hand, cash at bank and loans/advances.
It was further submitted that no trading or manufacturing activity was carried out by M/s Nishyam Farms Pvt. Ltd. Summons were issued by the ADIT u/s 131, in response to which Shri Pankaj Gupta, director of Nishyam Farms Pvt. Ltd., attended and got his statement recorded. In his statement, he affirmed to have given a loan of Rs.2.94 crore to the assessee out of the bank balance of the company running into several crores. On a further query as to why a cash of Rs.10.05 crore was retained in the bank of his company, Shri Pankaj Gupta stated that the amount was earlier withdrawn for purchase of land from the farmers which did not materialize. The AO issued summons to M/s Sharda Exports for knowing the correct nature of the transfer entry reflected in the bank account. Shri Pankaj Gupta appeared and again stated that the amount was withdrawn to be utilized for acquiring land from farmers which could not fructify. The AO, on consideration of the above facts and material, came to hold that M/s Nishyam Farms Pvt. Ltd. was nothing, but, a name lender. He, therefore, made an adition of Rs.2.94 3 crore in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) chose to delete the addition.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is clear that the assessee showed to have received a loan of Rs.2.94 crore from M/s Nishyam Farms Pvt. Ltd. One of the directors of this company appeared before the authorities and in his stated confirmed to have advanced a loan of equal sum to the assessee.
It is also seen that this company was holding Rs.10.05 crore in its bank, out of which a sum of Rs.2.94 crore was given to the assessee as a loan.
Thus, it is a case in which the lender had cash available with it many times more than the loan advanced to the assessee. When a director from the lender company has appeared in person and not only confirmed the fact of having advanced the loan to the assessee, but also gave the source of the amount of loan advanced, we fail to see as to how an addition can be made in the hands of the assessee under these circumstances.
Further, the inquiry conducted, at the instance of the AO, by the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, also did not transpire anything fishy.
Rather, it discerned that M/s Nishyam Farms Pvt. Ltd. was having cash flow available from many sources including share capital and loans, as has been reproduced in the assessment order. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the finding returned in the impugned order.
We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and sustain the deletion of addition.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 16.05.2016.