TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 20.12.2017 by the ld. ACIT, Circle 13, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made towards unsecured loan of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The interconnected issue involved thereon is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 3,25,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act, treating the receipt of unsecured loan as a bogus transaction in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de letter dated 05.12.2014 copy of the bank statement and confirmation from the loan creditors duly confirming the fact of advancing loans to the assessee company. The assessee also submitted that a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- was even repaid during the year to Sridhar Portfolio Management Pvt Ltd. 4. The assessee also furnished the bank statement vide letter submitted on 15.11.2017 to prove the fact that this transaction was routed through regular banking channel. The Ld. AO observed that assessee though stated to have enclosed the confirmation of the lenders along with the covering letter, but in reality, those confirmations were not on record. Further while furnishing the details by the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17, in the balance she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 132(4) of the Act, the assessee submitted that in reply to question no. 34, the Director at that point in time had stated that he was not aware that the aforesaid two lender companies were non-descript companies controlled by Mr. Deepak Agarwal. The Director further stated that he would try to obtain confirmation from the said parties. The Director had also admitted that he did not know the Directors or shareholders of these lenders companies as Mr. Deepak Agarwal arranged these sums. Since Mr. Deepak Agarwal did not provide necessary details to the Director of the assessee company, he replied that he was not aware about activities of the two lenders companies or its Directors. However it was pointed out that the Director of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Ld. CIT(A) analysed the bank statement of the said lender company for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 and found that there were huge credits in the bank account immediately prior to the issuance of loan amounts to the assessee company. Accordingly, it was concluded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the said lender company is engaged in layering of transactions in order to provide accommodation entries to various parties including the assessee company. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Ld. AO and concluded that the loans received by the assessee company from two parties are merely accommodation entries which has been rightly added as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act by the Ld. AO. Consequentially the commission ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnature of the Director thereon. The said confirmation goes to prove that the loans were given by them to the assessee company through regular banking channels and the fact of advancing loans to the assessee company were also confirmed by them. Two lender companies are having own funds of Rs. 15.15 crores in the case of M/s. I. Tech Insurance Brokers P Ltd. and Rs. 13.76 crores in the case of M/s. Sridhar Portfolio Management P Ltd., which are much more than the amounts advanced to the assessee company. This goes to prove the creditworthiness of the aforesaid two lender companies. All the lender companies are independently assessed to Income Tax and have been filing their income tax returns and their annual returns enclosing the audited fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....providers). Accordingly, an addition u/s. 68 of the Act was made in their hands on the basis of statement of their Director. The matter came up before this Tribunal in ITA 1469/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 dated 01.02.2023 and the Tribunal had deleted the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. In fact in this order there is a categorical finding that their lender companies had received monies from Tyagi Portfolio Management Ltd. In the instant case before us also the lender companies had received monies from M/s. Tyagi Portfolio Management Ltd. 7. Further we find that the co-ordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Flourish Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 103 taxmann.com 72, under identical circumstances had held that th....