TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain incriminating documents were seized. In this case, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee after recording the reason and in compliance to the same, assessee submitted that return filed u/s.139 of the Act dated 13.02.2012 may be treated as filed in compliance to the notice u/s.148 of the Act. Thereafter the AO issued statutory notices and in response to which written submission on behalf of the assessee was filed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee failed to discharge the burden lying upon her u/s.68 of the Act and has failed to prove creditworthiness and genuineness. It was also noted by the AO that the unsecured loan received by the assessee from Karnimata Commerce Private Limited is not genuine and, therefore, made addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s.68 of the Act. Further the AO made disallowance of interest of Rs.75,342/- on the unsecured loan of Karnimata Commerce Private Limited. 3. Against the said order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, based on findings of the settlement commission in the case of Radheshyam Agarwal and group, wherein L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted and that the department's assumptions are superfluous. vi) Issue settled by ITSC. Different view could not have been taken here. 2. Disclosure letter dated 21.12.2011 accepted by ITSC to be not binding on the assessee and the allegation of paper company could not be substantiated by the Department before ITSC. Foundation of the addition is lost. 3. In support of loan, legal and cogent evidences submitted (page no. 4 to 24 of PB). All the evidences remained uncontroverted. Nothing brought on record to disprove these evidences. Burden cast upon the assessee u/s 68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) (PN 109 to 112 of PR. relevant finding on PN 112. para 5). iii) DCIT vs Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.), SLP dismissed vide 254 ITR (St.) 275 (PN 113 to 115 of PB). iv) Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs ACTT (2008) 1 12 ITD 307 (Ahd.) (PN 1 16 to 129 of PB, relevant finding on PN 123- last 5 lines). v) ACIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other hand in this ease also Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal wife of Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal received unsecured loan of Rs.1.00 crore from the same company i.e. Karnimata Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and claims that this company is an NBFC company and assessed to tax having worth to the tune of Rs.23 crores hence the loan taken from the said company is genuine is not acceptable. In nutshell the creditor has advanced unsecured loan to three persons of this group i.e. Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal. M/s S.C.C. Investment and Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal. Major portion of the loan was received by Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal in his individual capacity and surrendered before the JClT(lnv.). Raipur vide his letter dated 21.12.2011 as discussed above. On perusal of the bank account as mentioned above it is seen that the fund advanced to the assessee as also earlier transferred from other account to the UBI, Raigarh branch account and out of this part of the fund was received in this case also whereas major portion was received in the case of Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal which he surrendered as his undisclosed income. In his case Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal has filed return on search period before the Settlement Commission ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hrust with reference to the unexplained cash credit regarding the bank accounts of Horilal, Chamar Singh, Laxmi Prasad, Bipin Mishra and Munish Kumar to route the unaccounted income back through specific transactions in the form of Kolkata based companies, as alleged by the CIT has been denied, as the Department has not been able to prove by leading legal and cogent evidence to support the allegation. It has been submitted that the CIT had impliedly accepted this in para 3.3 of the Rule 9 report as per the applicant. Para 30.1.............. The Department on the basis of enquiries under section 245D(3) has submitted that on the basis of enquiries conducted details of information relating to Kolkata bases companies mentioned have been gathered and enclosed along with the, report as Annexure-VIII to X. In the case of Karnimata Commerce Pvt. Ltd. at Annexure-VIII, the applicant had paid no -interest to the company. Para 30.3-.......... The Pr. CIT vide his report dated 10.09.2015 admitted to analyze the balance sheet to show substantial increase in unsecured loans which did not possess the creditworthiness for advancing such loans. He reiterated that the unsecured loans were prepl....