TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1744
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A)'/NFAC' for short), Delhi dated 31/03/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are as under:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,52,50,000/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and not appreciating that the assessee has failed to justify the actual nature of transactions and sources of funds and failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd in ITA No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24/12/2019 by making an addition of Rs. 9,52,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, disallowed Rs. 85,72,500/- in respect of interest of unsecured loan and further made ad-hoc addition of Rs. 19,05,000/- as commission. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. dated 24/12/2019, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 31/03/2023, allowed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 31/03/2023, the Department preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 4. Ground No.1 is regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 9,52,50,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed error in deleting the addition wherein not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansaction undertaken etc. However, the said NBFC M/s Rajkot Financial and Investment Pvt. Ltd. has not replied to the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 133(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. A.O. by drawing adverse inference, concluded that the Assessee had received credit amount of Rs. 9,52,50,000/- from M/s Rajkot Financial and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and the same is in the nature of undisclosed credits as the Assessee company failed to offer credible explanation. During the appellate proceeding, after verifying the material available on record, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 7. It is not in dispute that the Assessee availed unsecured loan of Rs. 9,52,50,000/- from M/s Rajkot Financial and Investment Pvt. Ltd. which is a NBFC registered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the conditions and also discharged the onus as required u/s 68 of the Act. Considering the above facts and circumstances and in the absence of any contrary material available on record to contradict the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to interference with the deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,52,50,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we find no merits in the Ground No. 1 of the Revenue. Hence, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In Ground No. 2, the Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the Judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 134/2012 wherein it has been held that it is the Assessee's duty to establish that the amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unsecured loan of Rs. 9,52,50,000/-. The Ld. A.O. made the said disallowance consequent to the addition of Rs. 9,52,50,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the said addition made u/s 68 of the Act and consequently also deleted the disallowance of Rs. 85,72,500/- made on account of interest on unsecured loan. Since we have upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,52,50,000/-, consequently the above disallowance which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) requires no interference. Accordingly, the Ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. The Ground No. 4 is regarding deletion of the addition of Rs. 19,05,000/-.The said addition has been made by the A.O. on the pretext that the Assesse....