TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooking to the facts of the case, we condone the delay of 04 days in filing the present appeal by the revenue before the Tribunal and appeal of the revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds: - 1. That the revenue reserves its rights to substantiate, modify, DELETE, supplement and/OR alter the grounds at any time of the appeal proceedings. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)-27, Kolkata erred in adjudicating the matter in favour of the assessee without any verification. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)-27, Kolkata erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,50,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....group of assessee on 18.12.2021 by the directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), UP & Uttarakhand. The assessee was also covered in the said search & seizure operation. This being the year of the search, return of the instant assessment year was selected for compulsory scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 31.05.2023. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire were also issued on 29.08.2023 & 06.02.2024. The assessee complied these notices and submitted documents/details & explanation which were perused by the AO and placed in record. The ld. AO after taking into account the assessee's reply and available materials framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22.03.2024 at assessed total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Now, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ground no. 1 and 2 are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. In ground no. 3 the revenue has assailed the addition of Rs. 17,50,000/-. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe from the statement of loan along with bank statements, which were available before the Assessing Officer also that the unsecured loan raised by the assessee was repaid. We have also verified the said repayment of loan with the bank statement furnished in the paper book. Therefore, once the assessee has established that the repayment of loa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Satya Retail Private Limited were treated by assessing officer to be sham in the sense that the creditworthiness etc. of the giver of the loan were not established. Accordingly, the assessing officer made addition under section 68 of the Act. 3.1 While the assessing officer dealt with unexplained cash credit from the M/s. Satya Retail Private Limited and from M/s. J.A Infracon Private Limited in his order in paras 5.1 and 5.2 respectively, the Commissioner of Income-tax in the appeal preferred by assessee found on facts and the material before it that the said two cash creditors had been holding their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness in respect of the loan transactions. 3.2 The appellate authority observed that, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the loan received by it and the loan was repaid by the assessee in the subsequent year. It led to unacceptable conclusion that the impugned transaction was a business transaction between the assessee and the loan parties and that they could not be doubted for their genuineness. 3.5 While the revenue has tried to put up a case that the transactions were in the nature of accommodation entries, this case has only presumptive and assumptive value not supported by any factual data. On the contrary, on the basis of the material before the authorities, the transactions were found to be genuine. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant attempted to emphasize that for the purpose of application of Section 68 of the Act, three ingr....