TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x and without considering or commenting upon confirmation filed by the assessee and payment of interest after TDS compliance. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,59,500/- paid as interest on the unsecured loans and ignoring the fact that TDS on the interest paid was deducted and the creditors had disclosed it as their income in ITRs, meaning thereby that it would amount to double taxation in the hands of receiver as well as in the hands of payee. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off. 3. The brief facts of the case are that while completing the assessment in the case of assessee, the Assessing officer inter alia made the impugned additions by observing as under:- "Unexplained Share Capital and Share Premium of Rs. 50 lakhs:- From the Balance Sheet of the assessee it is observed that share capital of the company has been increased from 344.53 Lacs to Rs. 406.35 Lacs. This gives additional capital at Rs. 61.82 Lacs. The share premium has also increased by Rs. 247.28 Lacs. This shows that the assessee has issued 6,18,200/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and added to its income." 3. Interest on unexplained unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,59,500/-: "The assessee has paid interest of Rs. 1,55,000/- to Stuti Gupta and Rs. 4500/- to Kusum Devi Vaid. Since the source of these loans itself has not been explained and these have been deemed to be income of the assessee, there is no question of allowance of interest on the same. Accordingly the amount of interest of Rs. 1,59,500/- is disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee." 4. Being aggrieved by the above additions made by the Assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish the required evidences to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to the share capital, share premium as well as relating to the unsecured loans and interest paid thereupon, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the above said order of the CIT(A) the assessee has come in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, has submitted that assessee had received Rs. 30 lakhs from M/s. Balvindera Paper Mills and Rs. 20 lakhs from Shri Teja Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iated against them under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. These unprecedented proceedings against the Company and its Directors had burdened the Directors of the Company in their individual capacity and goodwill of the company earned over the years was badly damaged. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the MD of the assessee-company viz., Shri Ashwani Arora was in depression and was undergoing treatment, so he could not provide the confirmed copies of accounts and other information. 7. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the assessee even could not produce the relevant evidences and details in the appellate proceedings in quantum appeal resulting into passing of the impugned order. 8. The Ld. counsel of the assessee has further submitted that in the meantime the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) against the assessee. The assessee during the penalty proceedings the assessee was able to procure the Bank account statement of Shri Teja Singh, copy of the return of income as well as his death certificate. The assessee had also been able to provide the copies of the return of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ging its onus in justifying the claim of receipt of money as share capital and premium and unsecured loan. Such situation did not obtain during the penalty proceedings. The appellant company may not have been able to discharge its onus in substantiating its claim in the assessment and the subsequent appellate proceedings but that per se would not mean that the appellant was proved to have acted contumaciously in making a claim which was non-genuine or bogus or fake........." 10. The Ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that the assessee was prevented because of the aforesaid reasons in producing the relevant evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to the share capital, share premium as well as unexplained loans. However, the assessee has been able to produce the relevant evidences which have been duly considered in the appellate proceedings relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee may be allowed to produce the aforesaid documents for consideration of the Assessing officer in the quantum proceedings. 11. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that since the assessee has not been abl....