TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order has affirmed addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer ('AO'), which was also upheld in the first appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ('CIT(A)') . 3. Findings' being primarily factual, learned counsel has challenged them as perverse. In particular, it was submitted that the Tribunal has overlooked the most vital and important fact that the appellant had repaid loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to M/s. Pediment Tieup Pvt. Ltd. ('PTPL'), prior to initiation of the assessment proceedings. Further, the loan was taken and repaid through banking channels and receipt and repayment of loan was established. AO of M/s PTPL has accepted the loan transaction as no corresponding addition was made in the ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating to creditworthiness of the payer, genuineness of the transaction and to an extent on the dubious identity of M/s PTPL. Tribunal has held that receipt and repayment of Rs. 1,00,00,000 would not in the factual context satisfy the threefold test, for the transactions were make belief and deceptive for the following reasons and grounds:- 1) M/s PTPL did not have tangible or intangible fixed assets. As per balance sheet relied by the appellant, M/s PTPL had "current assets" and total liability of Rs. 19.35 crores, consisting of share capital of Rs. 48 lacs, share premium of Rs. 18.45 lacs and "current liabilities" of Rs. 42 lacs. (It is therefore apparent that "current assets" comprised of loans "extended" to third parties.) 2) For the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) (hereafter, 'DDIT(Investigation)'), Kolkata in his report on the business activities of M/s PTPL, had ascertained that the company was providing accommodation entries. 10. Appellant, in her statement under Section 131, could not give the exact purpose for which the loan was taken. She replied that the finances were managed by her husband and she had no idea about them. On being questioned whether she operated her bank account or had any ATM card/debit card and credit card, she had replied in negative. Therefore, the appellant had absolutely no idea of any loan taken from M/s. PTPL, one of the 24 parties appearing in her balance sheet from whom loan was taken. 11. Tribunal had noted that there was no evidence or document to show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dation entry of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from M/s. PTPL. AO had carried out investigation by issuing summons to director of M/s. PTPL to appear in person, but there was non compliance and failure. AO had recorded statement of the appellant under Section 131 of the Act which was ambiguous and had corroborated and affirmed clandestine nature of the transaction. Lest there be any doubt or debate, we would quote paragraphs 27 and 28 of the order passed by the Tribunal: "27. The matter does not stop here. Having so much material to implicate the assessee for having obtained an accommodation entry of Rs. 1 crore from PTU, the AO carried out further investigation by issuing summons u/s 131 of the Act to the directors of PTU requiring their appearance in....