TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 975
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeals have the same nature of facts and have a common issue; so, ITA No.2538/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2010-11 is taken as the lead case. ITA No.2536/Mum/2023 is related to the disallowance of interest payment to the loan creditors. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the appeal before the ITAT in the name of ASG Capital Services Pvt Ltd; but the company has changed its status and is now known as ASG Capital Services LLP. The assessee has received loans total amount to Rs. 1 crore from M/s Olive Overseas Ltd (known as M/s Real gold Trading P. Ltd.) and Triangular Infocom Ltd (Lexus Infotech Ltd). during the impugned assessment year. After receiving information from the investigation department, the ld. AO reopened the impugned year U/s 148 of the Act. During assessment the ld. AO treated the loan as accommodation entry. The ld. AO relied on the statement recorded of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain during search. The said person was allegedly involved in providing the accommodation entry to the assessee. Considering this, the amount of Rs. 1 crore was added back under section 68 of the Act and also the interest payment on the loan amount to Rs. 11,45,063/-. Being ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... requested not to made any addition on this ground." 5. The Ld.AR invited our attention in the paper book about the detail submission of documents for compliance of Section 68 of the Act, which are as follows: - "Re.: Loan from Olive Overseas Ltd (Earlier Real gold Trading P. Ltd) PAN AACCR4512K Amount of LoanRs.50,00,000/- Interest Paid Rs. 11,45,063/- Taken on 12.12.2009 in FY 2009-10 (AY 2010-11) Sl no Documents APB, Pages 1.1 Ledger account of Assessee 28-29 1.2 Bank statement of Assessee 30-34 1.3 Ledger account of M/s Olive Overseas Ltd (M/s Real gold Trading Company) 35 1.4 Bank statement of M/s Olive Overseas Ltd (M/s Real gold Trading Company) 37-38 1.5 Copy of IT Return filed with Computation of Income alongwith Audited Balance Sheet & Profit and Loss Account for y 2010-11 of M/s Olive Overseas Ltd (M/s Real gold Trading Company) 41-61 1.6 PAN card copy of M/s Olive Overseas Ltd (M/s Real gold Trading Company) 62 1.7 Confirmation letter of M/s Olive Overseas Ltd M/s Olive Overseas Ltd (M/s Real gold Trading Company) 98 1.8 Affidavit-cum-declaration of M/s Olive Overseas Ltd M/s Olive Overseas Ltd (M/s Real gold Trading Company) [sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ Investigation Wing and without any independent enquiry deserves to be quashed. 6.1. The ld. AR argued on the merits of addition u/s 68 are concerned and submits that it had furnished voluminous documents, evidence and detailed submissions as to why the addition in respect of inter-corporate deposits could not have been made. This fact is noted both by the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). Despite having furnished all these voluminous details and evidences, the addition was sustained simply on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and without disputing any of the documents / evidences furnished by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, submits that on this very ground the addition is unsustainable since no dispute or doubt has been raised in respect of the evidences furnished by the assessee. 6.2. Ld. AR argued that the assessee further submits that the addition made by the Ld. AO and as affirmed by the Ld. CIT Appeals is bad in law also because the only basis of making a said addition is certain statements of one Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain and some others. It is not stated as to whether the assessee was in fact named in any of them and the relevance of these in the case of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... needs to be mentioned that the said interest pertains to loan taken in earlier years and which have not been doubted by the department. Therefore, it is prayed that no disallowance as regards the said interest payment can be made. 7. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and relied on the orders of revenue authorities. The ld. DR respectfully relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Benches in the case of M/s Atharva Business Pvt. vs. DCIT date of pronouncement 25/08/2022. Further, he relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, CC-1(1) in ITA No.1402/Mum/2023, date of order 27/07/2023 and finally, the order of co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Bench "C" in the case of Shri PravinKumar Jain vs DCIT in ITAT 7191/Mum/2018, date of pronouncement 19/01/2023. In this order, the Ld.DR pointed out that during the search under section 132(4), the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain was recorded and mentioned the names of the companies where the assessee has taken loan. Further, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench 'SMC' in the case of Premkumar M Sanghvi vs ITO (2017) 81 taxmann.com 308 (Ahd-Trib), but the Ld.DR had not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red that the Judgements relied on by the ld. DR are factually distinguishable due to the following primary reasons. 8.1.1. The order in the case of Praveen Kumar Jain v/s DCIT - ITA Nos 7191 to 7197 / M / 18is not applicable to the case of the assessee because the orders in this case are passed ex-parte and therefore the assessee was not defended; Even in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain, the estimate is made after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee hence genuinity or otherwise of the transactions was not adjudicated by the Tribunal. The ruling is based on the self-incriminating statements of the assessee therein which as mentioned earlier have been retracted by him which has not been considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain. 8.1.2. The order relied on by the ld. DR in the case of M/s Olive Overseas P. Ltd. v/s DCIT - ITA Nos 1402 to 1407 / M / 23 is factually different due to the order is not applicable to the present assessee's case because, the same deals with protective additions which also ultimately stood deleted relying on the case of Praveen Kumar Jain (supra) which itself is not applicable in the present case as stated above. There is....