Low tax effect and evidentiary support defeated Revenue's additions on unsecured loans, interest disallowance and bogus purchases.

The Revenue's appeal was held not maintainable because the tax effect was below the CBDT monetary limit and no exception applied, so it was dismissed. On merits, the addition of unsecured loans under section 68 was deleted because the assessee produced confirmations, returns, bank statements, audited accounts and banking trail evidence, while the Revenue brought no independent material to show the loans were sham. The linked interest disallowance also failed once the section 68 addition did not survive. The addition for alleged bogus purchases was likewise deleted, the purchases being supported by documents, banking payments and stock register entries, with no contrary material from the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10 was maintainable in view of the low tax effect under the CBDT circular; (ii) Whether the addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable; (iii) Whether the disallowance of interest expenditure linked to the section 68 addition was sustainable; (iv) Whether the addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10 was maintainable in view of the low tax effect under the CBDT circular.

Analysis: The tax effect stated in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the applicable CBDT circular, and no exception to the monetary limit was shown to apply.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee furnished confirmations, income-tax returns, bank statements, audited financial statements, details of interest payment and repayment, and the receipts were routed through banking channels. The Revenue did not bring independent material to disprove the evidences or establish that the transactions were sham.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition was upheld and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance of interest expenditure linked to the section 68 addition was sustainable.

Analysis: The disallowance was founded only on the addition of the related loans under section 68, and once that addition did not survive, the basis for disallowance of interest also failed.

Conclusion: The deletion of the interest disallowance was upheld and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iv): Whether the addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases was sustainable.

Analysis: The purchases were supported by documentary evidence, payment through banking channels and entries in the stock register, and the Revenue did not produce material to dislodge the findings recorded in appeal.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition for alleged bogus purchases was upheld and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to obtain any relief on the substantive additions for AY 2008-09, while its AY 2009-10 appeal was dismissed as barred by the monetary threshold, resulting in dismissal of the connected cross objections as well.

---