TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07.06.2017 received in this office on 04.07.2017 According to the letter, a search seizure action u/s. 132 was conducted in the group cases of M/s Esn Dee Aluminium Ltd. By DDIT (Inv.) Unit-II(2), Mumbai on 28.03.2014 During this search and seizure action, a survey action u/s. 133A was also conducted in case of Shri. Hasmukh Mehta During the survey action, an admission was made by Shri Hasmukh Mehta before the investigation wing that he arranges accommodation entries of unsecured loans, share application money, capital gains, purchase bills etc for various entities. A diary was also impounded by the investigation wing which contained certain transactions done by the assessee. M/s Trio Mercantile & Trading Pvt. Ltd which are accommodation entries arranged by Shri Hasmukh Mehta in which the assessee is also a beneficiary of amount Rs. 3,08,47.239/ 2 After going through the information received and statements recorded it is seen that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries furnished by Shri Hasmukh Mehta. The statements recorder by the investigation wing of Shri Hasmukh Mehta and his accomplices confirms to this extent The entries in diaries also co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lal & Co. Rs. 4400000/- Paid for purchase of Goods Included in the purchase of P&L A/c Purchase bill & Bank statement was attached Total Rs. 3,08,47,239/- 5. These details have also been incorporated at page 3 & 4 of the assessment order. Thus, it was stated that none of these entries were in the nature of loan or credit which can remotely suggest that there was some any kind of accommodation entries. However, the ld. AO not rejected the objections by the assessee but also rejected assessee's explanation in the following manner:- S.No. Name of the Party Amount (Rs.) Findings from the assessee's submission 1 Pioneer Insurance Pvt. Ltd. 550564 The assessee offering income against the fee received on account of risk inspection and bank statement reflecting the payment submitted. However, the nature of transaction is not proved vis- a-vis the business of assessee, creditworthiness of the payer, purpose of the risk inspection carried out by the payer vis-a-vis it's business, capacity of the assessee to conduct such inspect is not proved, in view of the fact that this party is an upfront company used by Shri Hasmukh Mehta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by assessee and no further details produced that the transaction was genuine. Hence, it can be understood that assessee had nothing to say in the matter. 8 Sevantilal & Co. 5236000 Only copy of confirmation letter in respect of purchase and bank statement of this party produced that payment were made for the purchase of animal feed by assessee. However, the details of the delivery, stock register vis- a vis assessee's business and books of accounts were not produced. Hence, the transaction is not genuine. 9 K. Sevantilal & Sons 6326000 Only copy of confirmation letter in respect of sales and bank statement of this party produced that payment were made for the supply of animal feed. However, the details of the delivery, stock register vis-a-vis assessee's business and books of accounts were not produced as well as the purchase against this sale was not produced by assessee. Hence, the transaction is not genuine. 10 K. Sevantilal 4400000 Only copy of confirmation letter in respect of purchase and bank statement of this party and assessee produced that payment were made for the purchase of animal feed by assessee. However, the details of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was argued by the appellant that the loans were received through proper banking channel and TDS was deducted and paid. Deduction of TDS is not an ingredient to decide the transaction is a genuine one or not. Even during the course of appellant proceedings also, the appellant had failed to provide the documentary evidence to show the nature of transactions and the creditworthiness of the persons to give loan of Rs. 14,00,000/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- respectively. The onus always lies on the appellant to prove that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the persons who have given loan. In the instant case, the assesee has not proved the creditworthiness of the persons. In view of the above, I have not reason to interfere the decision of the Id.AO and accordingly, the addition of Rs 26,00,000/- in the case of M/s. H J Thakkar and M/s. Stac International are upheld. 5.3.2 The transactions with Anirudha Enterprises of Rs. 50,00,000/- was on account of loan received. As rightly pointed out by the AO, the appellant had not filed any details to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender to give a loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- Further, the appellant had not provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Sale of services in P& L A/c 21,22 & 23 4. Anirudha Enterprises Rs. 5000000/- Advance Received This is advance received from the party 36 5. Pioneer Investment Ltd Rs. 580980/- Income/ Brokerage Received Part of Sale of services in P& LA/c 25 6. ADF Foods Pvt Ltd Rs. 900000/- . Finance Expenses Part of financial cost Rs. 1131507/in the P& L A/c 53 7. Stac International Rs. 1200000/- Advance given Short term Advances given 33 8. K.Sevnatilal &Co. Rs. 5236000/- Paid for purchase of Goods Included in the purchase of P& LA/c 41 9. Sevantilal & Sons Rs. 6326000/- Received for sale of Goods Included in the Revenue from operations of P & LA/c 47 10. K.Sevantilal &Co. Rs. 4400000/- Pa id for purchase of Goods Included in the purchase of P& LA/c 42 8. Thus, he submitted that the reasons recorded itself was based on wrong premise that assessee has taken any kind of accommodation entry and also on merits such an addition cannot be sustained. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) and submitted that onus to discharge ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advance in the earlier year and part of the payment has been received back in this year then we fail to understand how it is an unexplained credit, because what assessee has received is its own advance given to the said party in the earlier years. Ld. AO has not even enquired from the said party whether any such advance was given in the earlier years. If the amount of loan given in the earlier has not been inquired or doubted in the earlier years, then return of loan in this year by the said party to the assessee canot be doubted. Accordingly, this amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- cannot be added. There is no question of examining of any creditworthiness of the person returning loan when this party owed money to the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- as on 01/04/2013. Hence, this cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. iii. Infrasoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (Rs. 12,13,488/-, Rs. 20,25,311/- & Rs. 20,14,896/-) The said nature of transaction has been on account of income / brokerage received which has been included in the sale of services in the profit and loss account and in support of which debit note and bank statement has been attached. Again if assessee has shown thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... K. Sevnatilal & Co., - Rs. 52,36,000/- & Rs. 63,26,000/- These transactions are in the nature of purchase of goods by the assessee which assessee has paid for making the purchases. In support of which, assessee had produced purchase bills and the bank statement showing payment made through cheque for purchase of these goods to the said party. Nothing has been brought on record that ld. AO has carried out any inquiry or there is specific information to prove that this is some kind of bogus purchases made by the assessee, albeit it is case of unexplained credit by the AO. The ledger account clearly shows that its purchase of feed grade which is also reflected in the purchase bills and these purchases had already been debited to the profit and loss account. Then how it can be recokned as unexplained credit. x. K. Sevantilal & Co. - Rs. 44,00,000/- This transaction is on account of sale of goods which has been included in the Revenue from operations in the profit and loss account. In support of this, assessee had filed copy of sale bills and ledger account alongwith bank statements. Thus, if amount is on account of sales already included in the income, then it cannot be held....