TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this appeal read as under :- "1. In the circumstances and on the facts of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,50,40,000/- made by the AO as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without considering the fact that the director/promoter of the lending companies Shri Pravin Kumar Jain/Rakesh Doshi/ Vipul Vidur Bhatt have already admitted during the survey action that the lender company controlled by Pravin Jain/ Rakesh Doshi/Vipul Vidur Bhatt and companies not control by Pravin Jain are bogus companies who are engaged in providing accommodation entries of bogus purchase/sales and unsecured loan to other parties. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision. 4. The issue raised by the Revenue in grounds of appeal nos. 1 and 2 is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 4,50,40,000/- by the ld. CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit on the ground that the Director-promoter of the lending companies, Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, Shri Rakesh Doshi and Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt have already confessed during the survey action that the lending companies controlled by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and others are bogus companies engaged in providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed that assessee has shown unsecured loans of Rs. 45,31,60,431/-. On further perusal of the details, the Assessing Officer o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, he calculated the peak at Rs. 4,50,00,000/- of all the loans taken altogether during the financial year 2013-14 and added the same to the income of the assessee by framing assessment u/s . 5. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing and holding as under :- "6.1. As already mentioned, the facts of the case for the relevant assessment years are identical to those of A.Y.2013-14. The A.O. had information that the appellant had taken accommodation entries towards share capital and unsecured loans from the concerns controlled by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Vipul Vidur Bhatt During the survey u/s.133A, Shri Manish Shah, Director of the company had admitted that the amounts received towards share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Further, the A.O., inspite of requests from the assessee, has not provided for cross examination of Shri Pravin Jain and Rakesh Doshi on whose statements the A.O has placed reliance, thereby grossly violating the principles of natural justice. In view of the above discussion, the loans taken and subsequently repaid by the assessee are considered genuine and the addition of Rs. 4,50,40,000/- made by the A.O. is deleted. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has asked for cross examination of Pravin Jain and Rakesh Doshi which has not been provided by the A.O., thereby violating the principle of natural justice as he had relied only on the statements of Pravin Jain and Rakesh." 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght on record any cogent, adverse material to rebut the credibility of the corporate entity from whom loan has been taken. As already pointed out by us as above, that these corporate entities were found by the A.O. to have acquired funds by borrowals and acceptance of share capital and share premium. This by itself cannot lead to presumption that these sources are bogus without any enquiry. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the ld. DR's request that this issue be again remitted to the file of the A.O. to make further necessary enquiries cannot be entertained. The decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court referred by the ld. DR was on a different set of facts, wherein, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on the facts and....