AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 477 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was received in the office of the Ld. PCIT on 11.08.2023. On 22.07.2024 the ASR was submitted to the office of the Ld. PCIT through proper channel. On 12.08.2024 the certificate for filing the second appeal was received and on 19.02.2025 the second appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal after collecting the necessary hardcopies of documents/paper/details required for filing the appeal. The Ld. DR stated that the appeal could not be filed on or before the due date due to an immense work load relating to assessment, penalties and writ petition filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of the loan transactions? 3) Whether on the facts & circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in ignoring the surrounding circumstance of case as logically & elaborately brought on record by the AO? 4) Whether on the facts & circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in ignoring the non-existence of the respective loan creditor companies at their given addresses and also ignoring non-compliance of the respective Ioan creditors in response to the summons u/s 131 of the Act? 5) The appellant craves leave to make any amend, addition, alternation, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings." 3. Brief ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese loan transactions had been carried out through the banking channel and sufficient funds were available with the loan creditors to explain the amount of loan given and the genuineness of the transaction was proved with the fact that the assessee company was carrying out regular money lending activity and the loan was obtained in the regular course of business at commercial rate of interest which was also repaid at a later date in the subsequent year, interest was paid on the loans and tax at source had been deducted. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to find any justification for the action of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') in invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alysed the details of the 17 companies and found them to be shell companies with minimum profit and only giving loans and share capital to the different companies. The Ld. DR also stated that part of the loan was repaid during the year and our attention was drawn to page 44 of the assessment order in which the Ld. AO relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-VI Vs. M/s. T.S. Kishan & Co. Ltd. [ITA No 1270/2011] and added the loans and also the interest on such loans. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. AO and requested that the same may be upheld. 6. The Ld. AR on the other hand, stated that the appeal of the Department is delayed by 409 days and opposed the application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- to the returned loss of Rs.12,43,09,479/-, the total income has been computed at Rs.14,71,18,821/-, which is incorrect. 8. The Ld. AR stated that this was an error in the computation which has not been corrected. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 9. We have considered the facts of the case, the rival submissions made and the documents filed. None of the directors of the investor companies could be produced before the Ld. AO for examination. The assessment was taken up for examining the huge business loss which had occurred on account of transactions. However, the details of the same are not mentioned in the assessment order. The creditors responded to the notices u/s 133(6)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso non-compliance by the assessee as the directors could not be produced. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play to both the assessee as well as the Revenue, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside as the Ld. CIT(A) at least should have called for a remand report from the Ld. AO and could have asked the assessee to produce the directors of the creditor companies for examination before the Ld. AO so as to establish the identity, the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. We are also conscious of the fact that Ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. (supra) in support of the claim that since the amount was repaid, the addition was no....