DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Sidhvandan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1177/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1528 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMITA M BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT GOE L
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(1); 143(2); 13; 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1177/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2012-13 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 20, 1 ST FLOOR, ROOM NO. 104, E-2 ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI 110 055 VS. M/S SIDHVANDAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., C-1/35, SAFDARJUNG DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEW DELHI 110 016 (PAN: AAGCS7782L) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MS. PRAMITA M. BISWAS, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJ KUMAR, CA & SH. SUMIT GOEL, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 30.12.2015 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-27, NEW DELHI RELE VANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,85,00,000/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ULTIMATE BENEFICIARY AND HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM DUBIOUS COMPANY M/S VARRENYAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WHERE SOURCE OF FUND REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26.85 CRORES U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH WAS IN TURN A ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM INTERMEDIARY DUBIOUS COMPANY M/S VARRENYAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 26.85 CRORES ON SUBSTANTIATE BASIS IN CASE OF M/S SIDHVANDAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. AND CONFIRMING PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN M/S VARRENYAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WITHOUT REALIZING THE FACTS THAT M/S VARRENYAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. IS A PAPER COMPANY AND NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS AND HAS NO EMPLOYEES. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN IGNOR ING THE FACT THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS WHICH CAME AS UNSECURED LOANS IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE CLEARLY BOGUS AS HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ENTRY OPERATOR SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, ON OATH. 5(A) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT , 1956. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ON 18.9.2012 AND DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS. 4,22,650/-. THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROC ESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT). THE CASE OF THE ASSESEE WAS SELECTED AND STATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 10.9.2013 AND SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. FURTHER A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ALON GWITH A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 24.12.2013. THE AO ASSES SED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AT RS. 26,89,22,650/- AGAINST THE RETURN INCOME AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,85,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDI T U/S. 68 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.03.2015. AGAINST THE ASSES SMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2015, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.12.2015 ALLOWED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIF IED IN INCLUDING THE SUM OF RS. 26.85 CORES IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. CIT(DR) RELIED UPON T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATED THAT SECTI ON 68 OF THE ACT PERMITS THE AO TO ADD THE CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IF THE LATTER OFFERS NO EXPLAN ATION REGARDING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDIT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT SATISFACTORY. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT PLACES NO DUTY UPON AO TO POINT TO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAVODAYA CASTLES (P) LTD. 4 (2014) 50 TAXMANN.COM 110 (DELHI) AND THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF NAVODAYA CASTLE (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 56 TAXMANN.COM 18 (SC). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, SHE REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REL IED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THA T LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED WELL REASONED ORDER WHICH DOES N OT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE ALSO FILED TWO PAPER BOOKS I.E. PAPER BOOK-I CONTAINING PAGES 1-54 IN WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE DOCUMENTS OF M/S VARRENYAM S ECURITIES PVT. LTD. RS. 26,85,00,000/- I.E. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2012-13 (ASSESSED AT RS. 25,11,04,450/-); COPY OF AU DITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT; COPY OF PAN CARD; COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEM ENT; CERTIFIED LEDGER A/C OF VARRENYAM IN BOOKS OF ASSESS EE; INCORPORATION CERTIFICATE; ITR ACK. AY 2012-13 (I NCOME DECLARED 1.33 CR.); SUBMISSION DATED 7.9.2015 TO CIT(A) AND IT AT ORDER OF M/S VARRENYAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND IN ANOTHER PA PER BOOK-II WHICH CONTAINED PAGES 1-108 ATTACHING THEREWITH PAPER B OOK-I FILED ON 29.3.2019; CIT(A)S ORDER OF VARRENYAM SECURITI ES PVT. LTD AY 2012-13; DOCUMENTS SHOWING VARRENYAM FILED RECOVERY SUIT NO. CS620958.16 ON ASSESSEE FOR RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING AMOUNT STILL PENDING; LEDGER ACCOUNT F ASSESSEE IN BOOKS OF VARR ENYAM 1.4.11 TO 31.8.16 AND AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF A - AY 12-13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 24.78 CRORE HAS BEEN FINALLY MADE IN THE HANDS O F M/S VERRENYAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. BY THE AO; LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AND ITAT HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO FURTHER APPEAL HAS 5 BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE ALSO FILED THE BRIEF SYNOPSIS, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- ADDITION OF RS.26,85,OO,OOO/- U/S.68 THE ASSESSEE RECD. 26,85,00,0001- LOAN FROM VERRENY AM SECURITIES PVT. LTD.(VERRENYAM) IN THIS YEAR I.E. A.Y.12-13 VERRENYAM HAD TAKEN SHARE CAPITAL FROM COMPANIES OPE RATED BY ONE HIMANSHU VERMA ENTRY OPERATOR. THE SAID AMT. VARRENYAM LOANED ON INTT TO ASSESSEE. HENCE THE A.O. ADDED THE SAID AMT. U/S.68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDING S OF THE A.O. THE FINDINGS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE ERRONE OUS IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS BRIEF CONTENTIONS ONE - IT IS A CASE OF DOUBLE ADDITION THE ASSESSEE RECD. LOAN OFRS.26.85 CR. FROM VERRENY AM IN THIS YEAR THE A.O. HELD THAT VERRENYAM REED. ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES IN THE SHAPE OF SHARE CAPITAL / PREMIUM OF RS.24.78 CR. IN THIS YEAR FROM VARIOUS ENTRY OPERATING COMPANIES (AS PER THE LIST G IVEN ON PG.8 & 9 OF THE ASSTT. ORDER), WHICH AMT. HAS BEEN GIVEN TO A SSESSEE ON LOAN(A.O. PG.15, PARA-12) IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE A.O. ADDED RS.26.85 CR. THE LOAN REED. FROM VERRENYAM U/S.68 THE CASE OFVERRENYAM OF A.Y.12-13 WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) (1-18) 6 IN THE CASE OF VERRENYAM, THE SAID AMT. RS.24.78 CR. TAKEN FROM 13 COMPANIES BY VERRENYAM HAS BEEN ADDED U/S.68 (RP - 17-18) CIT(A) IN VERRENYAM, SUSTAINED THE SAID ADDITION OFRS .24.78 CR. (55-59, RP-59) ITAT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF VERRENYAM, HENCE THE A DDITION OF RS.24.78 CR. REMAINS SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF VERREN YAM, WHICH POSITION CONTINUOUS EVEN AS ON DATE (54-55) IT IS THE SAME 24.78 CR. WHICH WAS GIVEN BY VERRENYAM TO ASSESSEE, WHICH IS THE PART OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.26. 85 CR. M ADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE (A.O. PG.15, PARA-12) HENCE, RS.24.78 CR. SINCE ALREADY STANDS ADDED IN TH E HANDS OF VERRENYAM AND THE SAME AMT. HAS BEEN REED. BY THE ASSE SSEE, THEREFORE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SOURCE OF SAID AMT. STANDS FULLY EXPLAINED W.R.T. PROVISIONS OF SEC.68 O F THE I.T. ACT UNDER THESE FACTS, TO MAKE ADDITION FOR THE SAME AMT. OF RS.24.78 CR. IN THE HANDS OF VERRENYAM AND THEN AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WILL TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE SAM E AMT. REG. BAL. AMT. OF RS.2.07 CR. (26.85 - 24.78), THE A .O. OF VARRENYAM HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SOURCE IN THE HANDS OF VARRENYAM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2.0 CR. THEREFORE HE HAS NOT MADE AN Y ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF VARRENYAM U/S.68 (1-18, RP-18) EVEN IN THE ASSTT. OF ASSESSEE, THE A.O. HAS DOUBTED FO R ONLY THOSE RECEIPTS WHICH HAVE BEEN REED. BY VARRENYAM FROM 13 COMPANIES OPERATED BY HIMANSHU VERMA I.E. TOTALING RS.24.78 CR . AND NOT FOR BAL. RS.2.07 CR. 7 HENCE, THERE IS ACTUALLY NO COGENT REASON ASSIGNED I N THE IMPUGNED ASSTT. FOR MAKING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF BAL. RS.2. 07 CR. THUS, THE COMPLETE ADDITION OFRS.26.85 CR. IS UNJUSTIFI ED TWO - ON FURTHER MERITS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE SHARE CAPITAL 1 PREMIUM BUT LOAN OFRS.26.85 CR. (40-43) IT WAS INTT. BEARING LOAN @9% WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING IN TT. HAS BEEN PAID BY ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE AS A DEDUCTION AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS A.Y. INTEREST PAID AND ALLOWED TDS DEDUCTED AND PG .NO. DEPOSITED OF P /B 2012-13 2,17,42,274/- 21,74,227/- 87 2013-14 83,34,376/- 8,33,438/- 87 2014-15 6,00,075/- 60,008/- 88 2015-16 5,62,870/- 56,287/- 88 THE COMPLETE LOAN OF RS.26.85 CR. WAS RETURNED BACK U P TO A.Y.2013-14, ONLY SOME INTT. OFRS.94,14,283/- WAS O UTSTANDING AS ON 31.08.16 (86-88) VARRENYAM FILED CIVIL SUIT NO.CS6209581L6 IN TIS HA ZARI COURT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.94,14,283/- OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.08. 16 WHICH IS STILL IN PROGRESS (60-85, RP-66) THE FACT THAT IT IS A INTT. BEARING LOAN, INTT. HAS BEE N ALLOWED, TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED, TDS HAS BEEN DEPOSITED, TDS RETURN HAS BEEN FILED, THE CIVIL SUIT HAS BEEN FILED BY VARRENYAM FO R THE OUTSTANDING, PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK A GENUINE LOAN FROM VA RRENYAM AND 8 NOT IN THE NATURE OF AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FURTHER, IN TH IS CASE, THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE ALSO STANDS PROVED, SO FAR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED. ALSO, IN THE CASE OF A LOAN AND THAT TOO IN A.Y.12-13 , SOURCE OF THE SOURCE CANNOT BE ASKED, WHICH CAN BE ASKED ONLY W.E. F. A.Y.13-14 AND THAT TOO IN THE CASE OF RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL AS PROVIDED IN PROVISO TO SEC.68 INSERTED W.E.F. A.Y.13-14 THE ASSESSEE, THUS HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS FULLY W. R.T. SEC.68 OF THE I.T. ACT INCOME OF VARRENYAM AY 12-13 - RS.1.33 CR. DOCUMENTS OF VARRENAYAM ITR (45) PAN (30) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (19-29) BANK STATEMENTS (31-39) LEDGER ALC (40-43) CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (44) CASE LAWS FOR - IF LOAN RETURNED, IT IS AN EVIDENCE FOR THE LOA N BEING GENUINE DIT VS. MODERN CHARTIABLE FOUNDATION 335 ITR 105 (D EL.) 'WE MAY ALSO RECORD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE RESPONDENT THAT IN SO FAR AS UN - SECURED LOANS ARE CONCERNED, THEY WERE PAID BACK IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, WHICH SHOWS THAT THESE WERE GENUINE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ' CIT VS. KINETIC CAPITAL FINANCE LTD. 202 TAXMAN 548 (DEL.) 9 HELD THAT - WHERE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO DEPOSITS AND INVESTORS HAD ACKNOWLEDGED FACT THAT MONE Y HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THEM, FURTHER, INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE INVESTORS AND TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED, THUS, ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS INITIAL ONUS AND WAS NOT REQUIRE TO PRO VE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION WITH THE CREDITOR AND SOURCE OF INCOME OF CREDITOR. CIT VS. AYACHI CHANDRASHEKHAR NARSANGI 221 TAXMAN (GUJ.). (MAGZ.) 146 LOANS - A.Y. 2006 - 2007 - AO FRAMED ASSTT. U/S. 14 3 (3) WHEREIN HE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1.45 CRORES U/S. 68 ON GROUN D THAT LOAN TAKEN FROM ONE 'LA' WAS NOT EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY - ON APPEAL, CIT (A) WAS SATISFIED WITH RESPECT TO GENUINENESS OF TRA NSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF 'LA' AND, THEREFORE DELETED ADD ITION.- IT WAS FOUND THAT TOTAL LOAN OF RS. 1.60 CRORES WAS ADVANCED TO ASSESSEE, OUT OF WHICH RS. 15 LAKHS WAS REPAID TO 'LA' -0 BALAN CE LOAN AMOUNT WAS REPAID BY ASSESSEE IN IMMEDIATELY NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR - WHETHER WHEN DEPTT. HAD ACCEPTED SAME, ADDITION MADE BY AO WA S TO BE DELETED - HELD YES. FOR - SOURCE OF THE SOURCE CAN BE ASKED ONLY FROM A .Y.13-14 AND THAT TOO IN CASE OF SHARE CAPITAL PCIT VS. VEDHATA TOWER (P) LTD. (BOMBAY HIGH COURT O RDER DTD. 17.04.18, ITA NO. 819 OF 2015) CIT VS. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. 394 ITR 680 (BORN.) HELD THAT - SEC. 68 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE ASSESSE E IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. 10 FURTHER, HELD THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 HAS BEEN I NTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2013. THU S, IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ONWAR DS. ACIT VS. PREM ANAND (ITA O. 3514 / D / 2014) (DELHI ITAT ORDER DTD. 13.04.2017) '7.1. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ANS WERABLE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF SOURCE OF THE FUND. IN LIGHT OF T HE FACT THAT THERE IS NO CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE THREE PER SONS FOR ADVANCING LOAN AND THEIR CATEGORICAL ADMISSION CONFI RMING LOAN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, WE ARE OJ THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE LOAN AGGREGATING TO RS.38,50,000/- CANNOT BE CHAR GED TO TAX IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS U/S 68 PARTICULARLY IN ABSENCE O J ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON THE RECORD BY THE AO. HENCE, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF SOURCE OF THE FUND GETS BUTTRESSED B Y THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 68 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.201 3, WHICH EMPOWERS THE AO TO EXAMINE SOURCE OF SOURCE IN CASE O F SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM 01.04.2013.' 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE LAWS CITE D BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE NOTE THAT M/ S VARRENYAM SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-1 3 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,33,04,450/- AND ASSESSMENT OF M /S VARRENYAM SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CC-20, NEW DELHI (THE SAME AO IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE) DETERMINING ITS TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 25,11,04,450/ - VIDE HIS ORDER U/S 143 (3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 24.03.2015 (THE DATE ON WHICH AO ALS O FRAMED THE 11 ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSEE). IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGGREGATE OF THE LOA NS TAKEN HAD FILED THE COPY OF PAN CARD OF THE LENDER; COPY OF B ANK STATEMENT OF THE LENDER SHOWING ALL ABOVE ENTRIES; CONFIRMATION OF THE LENDER IN WRITING FOR GIVING THE LOAN; ROC REGISTRATION, LEN DER IS FILLING REGULAR VARIOUS DOCUMENTS WITH ROC; LENDER NAME IS I N ROC RECORD; COPY OF ITR OF THE LENDER. RECORD SHOWS THAT THE LENDER FILLING PAPERS WITH IT DEPARTMENT REGULARLY AND COP Y OF AUDITED FINAL ACCOUNTS' OF THE BORROWER. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT M/S VARRENYAM SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED IS A MUCH BIGGER COMPANY THAN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE COMPANY WAS PARTLY REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 18,25,00,000/- THROUGH BANKING HAD PAID INTEREST AT 9 % PER ANNUM AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,95,68,047/- (NET OF TDS DEDUCTED AT 10%) AND THE AFORESAID INTEREST WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 26.85 CRORES CLEARLY IS A CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AS IT HA S BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF M/S VARRENYAM SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE. AS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 24.78 CRORE HAS BEEN FINALLY MADE I N THE HANDS OF M/S VERRENYAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. BY THE AO; LD. CIT( A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AND ITAT HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO FURTHER APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, THEREFORE, IT HAS BECOME FINAL. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION OF RS. 26.85 C RORES WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH DOES NOT NEE D ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE JUDICIAL 12 DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY PARITY IN THE FACTS OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON WITH THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND . 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12/12/2019. SD/- SD/- [R.K. PANDA] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 12/12/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES