TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 [CIT(A)] dated 03- 01-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 31-12-2019. The sole grievance of the revenue is deletion of addition of Rs. 583.83 Lacs and Rs. 60 Lacs as made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Sec.68. Having heard vehement arguments of both the sides, the appeal is disposed-off as under. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 During assessment proceedings, pursuant to search action in the case of BNR group on 26-09-2017, notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee. It transpired that the assessee raised unsecured loan of Rs. 583.83 Lacs from an entity by the name M/s L.S. Automobile and Finance Co. Pvt Ltd. (LSAFCL) which was held by Ld. AO to be accommodation entry. The assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agwati Enterprises, Ld. AO added the amount of Rs. 60 Lacs u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE and framed the assessment. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The assessee assailed each of the findings of Ld. AO by way of elaborate written submissions which are already extracted in the impugned order. The same were subjected to remand proceedings wherein the assessee furnished various documents in support of its claim. The Ld. AO referred to the field enquiries and justified the impugned addition. On the other hand, the assessee relied on plethora of judicial decisions holding the field in assessee's favour. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A), considering the provisions of Sec.68, noted that the assessee had filed various documents with respect to LSAFCL to establish the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tmal (87 ITR 349) held that onus of proving what was apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. There should be some direct nexus between the conclusion of facts arrived at by the authorities concerned and the primary facts upon which the conclusion is based. Use of extraneous or irrelevant material in arriving at the conclusion would vitiate the conclusion of fact because it is difficult to predicate to what extent the extraneous and irrelevant material had influenced the authority in arriving at the conclusion of fact. The assessee was under no obligation to prove the source in the bank account of the creditor nor the origin of origin after the assessee established the real source of such receipts as loans. Once the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Our findings and Adjudication 4. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rendered pertinent factual findings in its order with respect to both the entities. These findings remain uncontroverted before us. We find that with respect to LSAFCL, the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidences to satisfy the primary ingredients of Sec.68. In our considered opinion, by furnishing these documents, the primary onus of the assessee stood discharged and it was the onus of Ld. AO to controvert the same. However, except for mere allegation, there is no concrete evidence to support the fact that the assessee's own unaccounted money had flown back into its accounts in the grab of loans. Pertinently, the loans advanced to the assessee are precede....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c.68 stood fully satisfied. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. Since facts as well as issue qua this entity are quite identical as in AY 2017-18, our adjudication as above shall mutatis mutandis apply for this entity. The corresponding grounds stand dismissed. 7. In AY 2018-19, Ld. AO made another addition of Rs. 330 Lacs for unsecured loans received from another entity by the name M/s Sam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (SEPL). During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee duly furnished ledger extracts, copy of Income Tax Returns, Bank statement of that entity to satisfy the primary ingredients of Sec.68. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO added the same u/s 68 and framed the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A), consideri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s liabilities and current liabilities which aggregated to more than Rs. 33.65 Crores. This entity made advances including loans to assessee which were reflected in its financial statements. Thus, this entity had sufficient creditworthiness to make loans and Ld. AO erred in rejecting the same. Pertinently, prior to advancing loan to the assessee, there was credit in the bank account of that entity for Rs. 10.66 Crores and there were no cash deposits. That entity filed Income Tax Return of Rs. 50.76 Lacs and paid Income Tax of Rs. 12.77 Lacs during AY 2023-24. The allegation that there was no fixed asset had nothing to do with the creditworthiness of the creditor. Upon perusal of statement of Shri Badan Singh (director of SEPL) as recorded on....