ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Samarth Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3188/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5174 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MANINDER KAUR
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 3188/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ITO WARD 22(2), NEW DELHI PAN : AABCS 7132 F VS. M/S SAMARTH FINCAP SERVICES PVT. LTD. 101-102, 1 ST FLOOR, ROHIT HOUSE, 3, TOLSTOY MARG CONNAUGHT PALACE, NEW DELHI 110001. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. SHRI SOMIL AGRAWAL, ADV. REVENUE BY DR. MANINDER KAUR, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 2 1 .0 9 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 .0 9 .2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2015 OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (APPEALS)-8, DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORDS ARE AS UNDER : 2 3. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHO FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 15.10.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,16,891/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2,17,24,790/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 23.03.2015 IN APPEAL NO.49/13-14 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,60,10,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY THE COMPANY HAD INCREASED FROM RS.73,50,000/- (AS ON 31.03.2009) TO RS. 2,01,10,000/- (AS ON 31.03.2010) THUS SHOWING AN INCREASE OF RS.1,60,10,000/-. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE INCREASE TO WHICH IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED LOAN FROM SIX PARTIES (THE LIST IS TABULATED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION COPIES TO THE PARTIES. AO NOTICED THAT THE ADDRESS OF ALL THE SIX PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE LOANS WAS SAME AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. AO NOTED THAT ALL THE COMPANIES WERE INTERRELATED AND WERE SINGLE HANDEDLY CONTROLLED COMPANIES AND NO INTEREST WAS PAID TO THOSE PERSONS ON THE LOANS TAKEN. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENT LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO AO. AO 3 THEREFORE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,60,10,000/-. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS A NBFC AND THE LOANS RECEIVED WAS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF THEIR CONFIRMATIONS, THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS & ROC PARTICULARS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO. WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION, CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT AO REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND WITHOUT MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES REQUIRED IN THE MATTER. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT MERELY FOR NON- CHARGING OF INTEREST BY THE LOAN CREDITORS THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE NOT GENUINE. HE ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US LEARNED DR TOOK US TO THE FINDINGS OF AO AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 7. LEARNED AR ON THE OTHER HAND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO OF THE LOANS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SIX CREDITORS. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND OTHER EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BY NOTING THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE THE NECESSARY ENQUIRES AND THAT THE AO REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES. BEFORE US, NO FALLACY IN THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.09.2021 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:- 27.09.2021 PY* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI