TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e directed against the order(s) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ['Ld.CIT(A)'] and they relate to AYs.2008-09 & 2009-10. ITA No. 1769/Mum/2024 & C.O.No. 252/Mum/2024 (AY.2009-10) 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is less than Rs. 60 lakhs and hence, the Revenue should not pursue this appeal, as per the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, dt. 15-03-2024. 3. We heard Ld D.R, who also submitted that the Form-36 filed by the revenue also mentions the tax effect as Rs. 11,52,150/- only. It is not shown to us that the grounds urged by the revenue in AY 2009-10 falls in any of the exceptions prescribed by the CBDT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also one of the beneficiaries of the loans and bogus purchases. Hence, the AO reopened the assessment of AY 2008-09 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 8. The AO has noticed that the assessee has taken loans of Rs. 42,50,000/- from the following three parties:- a. Sankhala Properties 5,00,000 b. Sankhala Finvest 5,00,000 c. Sundaram Gems 32,50,000 42,50,000 The AO assessed the same as un-explained cash u/s. 68 of the Act. He further noticed that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs. 24,36,498/- on the loans taken from the concerns belonging to Bhanwarlal Jain Group. Since the said loans were assessed u/s 68 of the Act, the AO disallowed the interest expenses as un-ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Sankhala Properties and Sankhala Finvest in the earlier years and the said additions have been deleted by the Tribunal in the earlier years. Accordingly, the Ld.AR contended that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue does not require any interference. 10.1. The Ld.DR, on the contrary, supported the order passed by the AO. 10.2. We heard the parties and perused the record on this issue. We notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted this addition with the following observations:- "3.2.3 It is seen that the appellant has filed the following details in respect of the lenders: 1. Confirmation of A/c 2. Income tax returns. 3. Bank Statements showing the loan transactions. 4. Audited Balance shee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g conclusively the three ingredients of identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction. The amounts were paid by the creditors from their running bank accounts which were accounted in the books of the appellant as well as the creditors as seen from the audited accounts filed. The transactions were also confirmed by all the creditors who are assessed to tax. Further, the appellant has paid interest through banks to the creditors by duly subjecting the interest amount to TDS and repaid the loans in subsequent assessment years and partly in this year along with interest. I find that the AO was in possession of good information in the form of investigation report, to begin with, but he could neither succee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld.CIT(A) noticed that the ITAT had deleted the addition on loans taken by the assessee in the earlier years in ITA No. 7385/Mum/2016. Further, the addition made u/s 68 of the Act in the instant year was also deleted by him. Since the very foundation on which the interest disallowance made by the AO no longer exists. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the interest disallowance made by the AO. 11.1. We notice that the AO had disallowed the interest expenditure only for the reason that the concerned loans were added by him u/s. 68 of the Act. It is seen that the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act has since been deleted by the Tribunal, in which case, the relevant interest expenditure could not be disallowed by the AO. Accordingly, we are of t....