TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal, therefore, with the consent of parties both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of fact, facts in A.Y. 2017-18 in ITA No. 397/M/2025 is treated as lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 42,10,000/- made by the AO to the income of the Appellant by way of disallowing interest on certain unsecured loans alleged to have been bogus. b) The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the view of the AO that the loans on which interest expenditure has been disallowed, treating as bogus, when the same were a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the statement, he has accepted of accommodation entries of loans from various parties. The name of such loan provider was also disclosed. The assessing officer recorded that opening balance of parties was at Rs. 2.70 crores. On perusal of profit and loss account, the assessing officer recorded that assessee has claimed interest of Rs. 42,10,000/- paid on such loans. The assessing officer was of the view that said loans were bogus, therefore, the interest is not allowable on such loans. The assessing officer issued show cause notice narrating the claim of interest to Sigma Commodities Private Limited, Dotch Sales Private Limited, Adinath Diamond Private Limited and Manmohak Export Private Limited aggregating of Rs. 42,10,000/-. In response ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he computation of income. The assessee, thus, submitted that assessee has claimed interest expenses of Rs. 37.00 lakh and not of Rs. 42.10 lakh. The reply of assessee was not accepted by assessing officer. The assessing officer reiterated that Rajesh Patel in his statement admitted and agreed that assessee has taken unsecured loans from various persons including four parties identified by him. The contention of assessee that the statement was retracted cannot be accepted. Before settlement commission loan from Manmohak Exports Private Limited was accepted as non-genuine. Thus, the assessee is now stopped from raising such plea. The assessee failed to furnish the financial statement with details to prove the creditworthiness of all the lende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tents of such order of ld. CIT(A) was also extracted from page no. 12 to 30 of impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) held that there is no material difference on the interest of bogus loan in case of assessee for A.Y. 2017- 18 and in case of Rajesh Real Estate Developers for A.Y. 2017-18. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submissions of learned authorised representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that a search action was carried out on assessee group on 10.03.2016. The group of assessee approached Income Tax Settlement Commission and settled another issue including loans ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epted by settlement commission as genuine. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also gone through the contents of order of settlement commission in case of assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17 dated 30.04.2019. The basis for making addition has already been recorded by us in para 2 above. I find that before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed very details written submission and also furnished copy of order of Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 30.04.2019. I find that despite explaining all the facts, the ld. CIT(A) simply relied upon the order of his....