TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 28-03-2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1,69,973/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 28-03- 2015, on the ground that the unsecured loans received from M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- is in the nature of accommodation entry through one Shri Shirish C. Shah (hereinafter referred to as SCS). The assessee filed his Return of Income in response to the 148 notice. After detailed discussions, the assessment was completed by making addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- received from M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. as bogus, paper/shell company and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee explained that the sum of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- received from M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. was a temporary loan which was repaid in the same financial year itself. The assessee filed the following details: (i) Ledger account of PIL for A. Y.2010-11 (ii) Ack. of IT Return of PIL for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12- (iii) Copy of Audited Accounts of PIL for A.Y.2010-11. (iv) Confirmation of A/c ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 (Delhi). iv) PrCIT v. Hi Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 402(Delhi). [SLP of Revenue dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported [2018] 96 taxmann.com 403]. v) PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi). vi) ACIT v. Shyam Indus Power Solutions (P.) Ltd. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 424 (Delhi - Trib). vii) CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta [2017] 86 taxmann.com 22 (Bom). viii) CIT v. Dharamdev Finance (P.) Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 395 (Guj). ix) CIT v. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd. (2014) 42 taxmann.com 473 (Guj). x) CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251 (Gu)). xi) Dimco Silk Mills Vs. ITO (1999) 107 Taxman 41 (Ahd). ........................................ Further. I differ with the view of the AO that the company viz PIL [now known as Aadhar Ventures (India) Ltd) in question from whom temporary loan of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- has been received by the appellant and also repaid during the year itself is a paper/shell company. The company PIL is a listed company and as evident from the website of the stock exchange i.e. BSE. The status ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found and seized, which in the instant case is SCS and not the appellant and it could not be applied against a third party. No addition is warranted on the basis of material seized from the third party and the statement of such third party not corroborated by specific independent evidence and in absence of any cross examination of such persons granted to the appellant in whose case the same are relied upon. The said view is supported by the following judgments relied upon by the appellant. (i) Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Radico Khaitan Ltd (2017) 83 taxmann.com 375 (Delhi) (iii) Pavitra Realcon (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 142 (Delhi-Trib.) (iv) Anil Jaggi v. ACIT (2018) 168 ITD 612 (Mumbai - Trib.) (v) CIT-II v. Kantibhal Revidas Patel [2014] 42 taxmann.com 128 (Gujarat) vi) Bharat t A. Mehta vs. ITO [2001] 116 Taxman 301(AHD.) (Mag.) as affirmed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in ITO v. Bharat A. Mehta (2015) 60 taxmann.com 31. vii) Regency Mahavir Properties v. ACIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 444 [Mum] viii) ACIT v. Omprakash & Co., (2004) 87 TTJ 183 (Mum-Trib) ..........................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IL and others for making the addition in absence of granting an opportunity of cross examination of such persons to the appellant Thus, considering my findings and observations discussed at length hereinabove, the addition of Rs 1,85,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that the company M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd. (PIL) in whose shares the assessee has claimed LTCG is one of the companies controlled by Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred is ignoring the fact that Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah has admitted that he was controlling and running number of companies to provide bogus accommodation entries of LTCG & Unsecured loans and PIL was one such company. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred is ignoring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000 16-Jan-2010 Ch. No. 20536 HDFC Bank 10,00,000 6.1. Copies of the relevant bank statements are placed at Page Nos. 161 to 166 of the Paper Book. Further the Income Tax Returns filed by M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. for the Asst. Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are against total income of Rs. 1,73,55,274/- and Rs. 1,93,48,498/- respectively. The Revenue could not dispute the repayment of loans by the assessee through banking channels. 7. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd. reported in [2023] 156 taxmann.com 75 held as follows: "Where assessee showed unsecured loans received during relevant assessment year and AO made addition on ground that assessee failed to discharge onus of liability as laid down under section 68, since amount of loan received by assessee was returned to loan party during year itself and all transactions were carried out through banking channels, impugned addition was to be deleted." 7.1. Similarly Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ganesh Plantation Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 149 held as follows: "Where Assessing Officer initiated reassessment on basis of Informati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 11. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that the company M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd. (PIL) in whose shares the assessee has claimed LTCG is one of the companies controlled by Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred is ignoring the fact that Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah has admitted that he was controlling and running number of companies to provide bogus accommodation entries of LTCG & Unsecured loans and PIL was one such company. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred is ignoring the fact that the directors of the company PIL have categorically admitted that they were dummy directors & there was no business activity in the company. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred is ignoring the fact that there was astronomical rise ....