TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 956
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7900 and not of a company or of a consortium of companies. ii) Further, as per letter of Acceptance/allotment dt. 05.01.2016 reg. notification of award package no BSHP11/4/SH-90 issued by Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, it is revealed that assessee has been awarded only for completion of balance civil work in Karnakudariya-Chapra section of Mohammadpur-Chapra road. In each line of contract work, the word "Contractor" is appearing almost in each line of terms and conditions instead of a developer of infrastructure. Hence assessee was given civil contract work of balance work/part of the work and comes under the category of Works Contract and in this way also not entitled for deduction 80IA of the Income tax Act. iii) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that the creditworthiness of unsecured loans of Rs. 77,00,000/- has not been proved by the assessee in terms of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during assessment proceedings. Identity and credit worthiness has not been proved despite summons issued to the unsecured loans through postal mode as well as sent through notice server of the department. iv) Ld. CIT(A) has err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is fake and signed by some unknown person as an authorized signatory. The Assessing Officer held that this fact is further strengthened by the perusal of the financials of the company which shows a share capital of Rs. 5,67,500/- and a net profit of Rs. 1617/- only and company has no fixed assets or taken any building on rent, which was essential for running business by the company. The Assessing Officer held that M/s Pradik Impex Pvt. Ltd. has also not filed its ITR for A.Y. 2017-18 as copy of same is not furnished so far. The Assessing Officer further held that perusal of the bank account furnished with the reply signed by authorized representative reveals that only one page of copy of bank account without mentioning the name of the bank in which this account has been maintained. This page of the bank account reveals that assessee has received unsecured loan of Rs. 69,70,000/- and Rs. 8,00,000/- on 04.04.2016 and this amount was credited in the account of the creditor on the same day. 8. The Assessing Officer has also observed that the company has also been struck off by Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana and hence, made addition of Rs. 77,00,000/- as unsecured loan rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....copy of ITR Acknowledgment of Tiku Ram Gum and Chemicals for AY 2017-18. iv. Besides the above, M/s Pradik Impex furnished a copy of Confirmation of accounts of Mahanagar Promoters Pvt. Ltd., therein confirming the receipt of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 02.04.2016. * Also, a confirmation of accounts of Venus Impex, showing payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- by Venus Impex to Pradik Impex on 16.04.2016 was provided to the AO. A copy of ITR Acknowledgment for AY 2017-18 of Sh. Gobind Parsad Kedia having PAN AMEPK8133E was also furnished, that discloses his current address. Form MGT-9, Extract of Annual Return as on the financial year ended on 31.03.2015 was also furnished which explains that the Principal Business Activity of M/s Pradik Impex is trading of Guar, Gum and Split. 11. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has relied on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that if the creditor is a Company, then to prove identity, details in form of registered address or PAN identity, etc can be furnished and in the instant case, M/s Pradik Impex had filed letter with supporting documents with the Department on 24.12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Paradik Impex Pvt. Ltd. House No. 490, Urban Estate- II, Hisar And H. No. 18, Ward-12, Siwani Mandi against the correct address of Sh. Gobind Prasad Kedia, i.e. H. No. 118, Ward No 12, Siwani Mandi as mentioned in the ITR for AY 2017-18 of Sh. Gobind Parsad Kedia. 15. With regard to the non-service of Notice on the Address of Company indicated in its Bank statement, it is submitted that EG-35, Pushpa Complex was registered office address of Pradik Impex from date of its incorporation to 17.05.2012 and ceased to be the registered office address thereafter. In this regard, reliance is placed on the Filings with MCA, of Form 18, that is efiled. The said Forms duly note that Company has duly intimated the MCA regarding change in its registered office address to 1725, Sector-13, Karnal, Haryana-132001, w.e.f. 17.05.2012. It was argued that based on incorrect enquiries conducted and the issuing of summons on wrong address, the AO has erred in observing that Pradik Impex is a paper company owned by dummy directors and has no Fixed Assets or taking any building on rent and the allegation of the AO that Pradik Impex has been struck off by Registrar of Companies, Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found in those addresses. Thereafter, the A.O. analyzed the financials of the company held Pradik Impex as a paper company as it has no fixed assets, no activity, not mentioned name in the signed submission, not provided name of the bank account etc. The A.O. also noted that the company has been struck off by the RoC, Delhi Haryana. The added the unsecured loan u/s 68 to the income of the appellant. 5.2.1 The appellant submitted that the A.O. was incorrect to mention that no PAN, Address was mentioned in the confirmation letter and submitted a copy of the letter filed before A.O. duly stamped on 24.12.2019. It was noted that in the impugned letter PAN and address of Pradik Impex was mentioned as 1725, Sector 13, Karnal. The appellant submitted that A.O. has sent the summons to a different residential address of erstwhile director Gobind Prasad Kedia, which was not correct. The appellant further submitted Shri Kedia resigned as Director from 16.02.2017 and that the change in address and director were duly uploaded in the MCA portal. The appellant submitted a copy of these documents from MCA website. The appellant also submitted that Pradik Impex has been regularly filing re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enquiry cannot be accepted as evidence for making addition u/s 68. Thus the A.O. is directed to delete the addition of 77,00,000/- Ground raised by the appellant is hereby allowed." 18. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 19. Before us, the ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the submissions made before the authorities below. 20. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Cash credits: 21. The provisions of Section 68 is as under: "S. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prove the genuineness of the same. The assessee furnished the detail of some of the expenses, but did not produce bills/vouchers in support of his contention. As the assessee has not furnished complete information, bills / vouchers from which genuineness of the expenses debited by the assessee in profit & loss account could be verified, the AO disallowed on ad-hoc basis an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- 27. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 28. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, "The AO has made additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of excess expenses debited in P&L account and allegedly in absence of complete information and bills/ vouchers of the expenses, and on inability of AO to verify genuineness of expenses debited in P&L account.The above observations made by the AO are manifestly erroneous and contrary to facts. That it is pertinent to note the factual position. The Appellant furnished the following documents: Sub-contractor a. Confirmation of Account received from M/s Sahdev Kumar Contractor, Hisar (Sub-contractor) b. Ledger account of Advance account of Appellant appearing in books of Sahd....