TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 831
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er claiming set off of losses from hotel business as against the profits from fruit business. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and assessment was completed making following additions: Unsecured Loans of Rs. 5,78,03,556 [DJ Fruits of Rs. 11553566 & Hotel German Palace of Rs. 46250000] Interest on Unsecured Loans Rs. 44,87,521 Sundry Creditors Rs. 47,02,918 GP addition Rs. 8,25,834 Thus the Assessing Officer determined the total income as Rs. 6,35,19,054/- and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and during the appellate proceedings the assessee filed additional evidences, which were considered by Ld. CIT(A) by calling for three Remand Reports from the Assessing Officer from time to time and deleted the additions and partly allowed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved against the Appellate order, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: (1) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences at appellate stage which would be in contravention to the Rules made under Rule 46A of IT Rules. (2) The Ld.CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee had produced the additional evidence on record, which would fall within the ambit of sub rule (4) of rule 46A of the rules, and hence, the question of violation of such rule on the ground urged on behalf of the appellant based on sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 46A, does not arise. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has been given opportunity to deal with the additional evidence produced by the assessee as the remand report was called for. Under the circumstances, no substantial question of law can be said to have arisen insofar as this issue is concerned." 6.1. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) invoking sub-rule 4 of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Thus the Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is deletion of unexplained addition of Rs. 3,38,51,466/- made u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee availed unsecured loan of Rs. 4,62,50,000/- for its Hotel German Palace business from 26 persons. The assessee produced details by way of additional documents during appellate proceedings which was considered each credit wise by the Ld. CIT(A) by calling for three R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....far as these cases are concerned, there cannot be any adverse finding on such unsecured loans. 11. Further, the appellant has relied many decisions in support of his contentions with regard to the unsecured loans. I have also carefully perused the same and found that no adverse finding can be given even on relying these decisions. On the contrary, the A.O. has not given any revenue-favoured decision in the assessment order so passed which appeared to be ex-parte assessment making the additions on the basis of accounts as uploaded by the appellant. 12. In the forwarding letter dated 05.04.2019, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. Range-7, Ahmedabad has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered on 05.03.2019 in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. And stated that the assessee ought to have discharged his primary onus to prove the identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender. I have gone through this decision also and found that in that case, the company introduced the money in the name of share capital or as share application money and did not respond to the notices issued by the Hon'ble Suprem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ussed by Ld. CIT(A) from Page Nos. 24 to 100 of his appellate order. The Revenue has not placed on record any contra evidences of loans and repayments. Thus we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on the genuineness of the loan transaction. Thus the deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference. Therefore the Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is disallowance of interest of Rs. 15,02,757/- on the unsecured loans. This ground is consequential to Ground No. 3, since the unsecured loans is already deleted, consequently disallowance of interest is liable to be deleted. Thus Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 9. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue is addition of Rs. 24,54,528/ made on account of sundry creditors. The Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: "... 14.6 I have examined the facts afresh and noted that the appellant had furnished the details in the tabular format showing the details of opening balance, addition during the year, details of payments made in subsequent years, full postal addresses, etc. There have been payments towards p....