TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleting the addition of Rs. 3,19,50,000/- made on account of unverifiable unsecured loans, as the creditworthiness/capacity to the lender could not be proved. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in law deleting the addition of Rs. 3,19,50,000/- made on account of unverifiable unsecured loans as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transaction." 3. The assessee is a Private Limited Company deriving income from business. Return declaring income at Rs. 4,21,980/- was filed on 02/10/2010. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has raised unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 3,70,08,454/- from different Companies. Therefore, the Assessing Officer sought information ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation letters from aforesaid corporate entities, its acknowledgement of returns of income up to AY. 2012-13, PANs, copies of audited balance sheets, written replies furnished in compliance to notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act, copies of their bank statements from whom the loans were advanced to the appellant which established the identity and creditworthiness of the lender companies and also genuineness of transaction. The appellant at the appellate stage has also furnished copies of the aforesaid documents in support of its claim. However, the aforesaid evidences were rejected by the AO and it was held that the unsecured loans were not genuine and the identity and creditworthiness of the lender companies could not be proved on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any does exist on the given address has no force in as much as the notices u/s 133(6) as well as the summons u/s 131 of the Act were served to the lender companies. As regards the difference in signatures on the replies filed in response to notice u/s 133(6) and confirmations letters, it is observed that confirmations letters have been signed authorized representative whereas the balance sheets and replies to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act have been signed by the Directors of the lender companies. The observation of the AO in regard to the low balances in their bank account has no force these are the current bank accounts of the lender companies and no interest is accrued on the balances in the current accounts. The observation in regard to m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidences furnished by the appellant were not genuine. Further, nothing adverse has been brought on record by the AO to establish that the unsecured loans received from 11 corporate entities, part of which was repaid in the subsequent year and interest was also paid to some of the depositors after deducting 1JJS, represented appellant's undisclosed income. The AO has not brought any adverse material on record to establish that the confirmation letters filed by the lender companies in response to notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act were not genuine. From the perusal of the remand report of the AO dated 10-06-2015 and the copies of statements recorded by the AO on oath, it is observed that all the 11 corporate entities have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant From the perusal of the respective balance sheets of the investor companies, it is clear that such companies are having substantial finances at their command and as such these companies are entities of means. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Meerut vs. Nav Bharat Duplex Ltd. dated 04-01-2013 in ITA No.279/2010. The intention of law is that unaccounted money should be brought to tax. As per provisions of section 68 of the Act onus is on the person in whose books of account such money is surfaced. If an amount is surfaced in the books of an assessee either in. the shape of share application money or a deposit/loan; it is presumed that such money belongs to the perso....