TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred to as "Act"] dated 29.12.2019 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -23(2), Mumbai for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 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. 7,20,33,333/- made by AO on account of unexplained unsecured loans taken from M/s Sanika Commodities India Pvt. Ltd, u/s 68 of the Act, without appreciating the facts that during the assessment proceedings the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of transaction?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considerin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of Rs. 7,20,33,333/-?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in admitting the new evidences without asking remand report from Assessing Officer as prescribed in rule 46B of Income tax Rule, 1962?" 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 56,87,810/- made by AO on account of 25% of unexplained commission paid during the year under consideration, without appreciating the facts that during the assessment proceedings the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of commission paid and also the assessee has failed to submit full details of commission parties?" 7. The appellant craves lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... properly shown as 'Sundry debtors' (trade receivables) in their books of accounts/Balance Sheet. The AO had considered the purchases to be genuine from all the parties as reflected in the statement of party wise purchases submitted. The appellant had made payments gradually to all the supplies made in the subsequent years as is reflected in the ledger confirmation of the said party. Thus, simply for a wrong classification, the same ought not have been considered as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by AO. The CIT(A), however, considered the written submissions of the appellant favourably and deleted the addition. 4. Before us, the ld.DR relied on the assessment order. On the other hand, the ld.AR of the assessee supported the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d ledger copies, bank account statement, ITR & Balance sheet of the M/s. Sanika Commodities India Pvt. Lid 7.3 The details submitted by the appellant have been perused. As claimed by the appellant, purchases were made on various dates from the M/s. Sanika Commodities India Pvt. Ltd, who has granted line of credit to the appellant as well. The appellant has claimed that the amount was being paid subsequently. The claim of the appellant can be ascertained after careful perusal of the bank account statement, wherein there are multiple payments from the appellant to M/s Sanika Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. 7.4 It was also noticed form the Balance sheet of the M/s. Sanika Commodities India Pvt. Ltd for the year ending 31.03.2017 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On careful consideration of all the relevant facts of the case, rival submissions and the record before us, we do not find any reason for differing from the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A). The AO did not appreciate the facts correctly and jumped to an adverse conclusion. Mere misclassification of the impugned sum in the books of account did not justify treating the same as unexplained cash credit liable to be added u/s 68 of the Act. We therefore, uphold the deletion of the addition by the ld.CIT(A), dismissing the grounds of appeal of the assessee in the matter. 6. The ground no.6 of appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 56.87 lakh, being 25% amount of Brokerage and Commission paid by the appellant on ad-hoc basis. The AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee had also provided the names and addresses and PAN of all parties and had also submitted all the confirmations of all parties to whom the brokerage and commission was paid. (Page 94 to 97). The TDS as applicable had also been deducted by it. It is thus not understood on what basis the said addition on ad-hoc basis was made by the AO. There was no inquiry ever made by the assessing officer in assessment proceedings nor any notice u/s 133(6) was issued to any of the parties. 8. On careful consideration of all relevant facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A).The ld.AR before us as well duly demonstrated that the said expenditure was a genuine one and the AO did not make out a cas....