TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....86,21,750/- as made by the ld. Assessing Officer in respect of unsecured loans and interest thereon by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.10.2017, declaring total income at Rs. 2,98,58,010/-. The case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were dully issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 2,82,00,000/- the details whereas is given in para no.3 of the assessment, which extracted as under:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loans to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. Accordingly, the assessee furnished the details qua the loan creditors comprising names, addresses, audited balance sheets, confirmations and bank statements etc. However, the ld. AO treated these loans as accommodation entries and added the same u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit without pointing out any defect or deficiencies in the evidences furnished by the assessee. Besides, the ld. AO added the interest on the above loans of Rs. 4,21,750/-. We note that the ld. CIT (A) has allowed the appeal after recording a finding of fact that these loans were repaid by the assessee in the subsequent financial years. In our opinion, once t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it has been held as under :- "3. The issue in this case arose in respect of the assessment year 2012-2013. It appears that the two loan transactions of Rs. 8,50,00,000/- and Rs. 23,70,00,000/- received by respondent assessee from one M/s. J.A Infracon Private Limited and M/s. 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 Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etc. It was also recorded that notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said parties which were duly responded by them. The identity of the parties could not be, therefore disputed, recorded the tribunal. The aspect was also noticed that the assessee was not beneficiary 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 ....