TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest. The assessee was asked to submit details of parties from whom unsecured loan were taken during the year with their complete details along with Balance Sheet, bank statement, etc. and asked to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. In response, assessee furnished the details of persons from whom assessee has taken unsecured loans vide its submissions dated 16.09.2019 through ITBA. In order to verify the same, AO issued notices u/s 133 (6) of the Act. In response, all the parties replied except Rabik Export Pvt. Ltd.. The same was returned back with remark 'incomplete address without office'. Since the notice u/s 133(6) returned unserved relating to Rabik Export Pvt. Ltd., an Inspector was deputed to make field enquiries at the registered office address as per ROC. It was reported by the Inspector that no company exists on that address. The letter was also issued to the jurisdictional AO on 12.12.2019 to provide the details of Income-tax return of Rabik Export Pvt. Ltd.. In response, it was submitted that no income-tax return was filed for the AY 2017-18 & 2018-19. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee asking details of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....off during the same financial year through banking channels within three months. Further, the appellant contended that merely because the directors of Rabik Exports were not produced before AO, could not be ground to say that the unsecured loan is non-genuine. Regarding not producing directors of Rabik Exports Pvt. Ltd., the AR of the appellant contended that all the business dealings during F.Y. 2016-17 were overseen by the late Shri Vimal Kumar Bhageria who served as the director during F.Y. 2016-17 and he was fully aware of all pertinent information and maintained relationship with the directors of Rabik Exports Ltd. However, Late Vimal Kumar Bhageria had passed away and Shri Ankit Bhageria lacked first hand knowledge of the dealing and transactions that took place during the relevant assessment year. In addition, the appellant submitted various case laws to substantiate his case. 6.2.3 On perusal of the facts of the case, one thing is clear that although Shri Ankit Bhageria was unable to produce the director of M/s Rabik Exports and the company was not found at the address given by the appellant. However, the appellant had furnished copy of confirmation and bank statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid in the same financial year, appellant was not the beneficiary of that loan. 6.2.5 Therefore, looking into the facts of the case that the loan taken from banking channels was squared off within the same financial year itself through banking channel itself, I am of the opinion that such addition cannot be made as the appellant was not the beneficiary as per above judicial pronouncements. Accordingly, addition made by AO of Rs. 1,65,10,000/- u/s 68 of the Act is deleted. Ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed." 5. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- "Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. l,65,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the J.T. Act by the assessing officer without appreciating the facts that the assessee could not establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender, M/s. Rubik Exports Pvt. Ltd." 6. At the time of hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice findings of the AO and submitted that Rabik Exports Pvt. Ltd. was not traceable considering the fact that 133(6) notices were returned unserved from the addresses provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16-17. From the record, it is clear that even the Director of the assessee company has confirmed the transaction, receipt of unsecured loan and repayment of the same. Merely because the AO could not trace the company as per the address available on ROC records and non-filing of return of income for the assessment year under consideration, the transactions carried on by the assessee through banking channel cannot be nullified. It is a fact on record that the transactions are taken place through the banking channel and the same was repaid within three months also through banking channel. 9. We observed that on the similar facts on record, coordinate Bench in the case of Signature Global India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held as under :- "18. With regard to ground no.ii(a), we observed that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan from 9 parties and assessee has submitted copies of ITR acknowledgement, confirmation of the loan creditors and copy of bank statement of all the loan creditors and with regard to Basera Realtech Private Limited submitted a copy of the Hon'ble High Court order. The Assessing Officer has made the addition after analyzing loa....