Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Unsecured loan in Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Shri Mehndipur Balaji on 4 July, 2022Matching Fragments
Subodh Agarwal, Success Vyapar Ltd and Neil Industries Ltd.
Rs.3,67,59,615/- (bogus unsecured loan and interest) + Rs.42,05,902/- (bogus unsecured loan and interest) 45 of 2021 2011-12 Rs.9,18,941/-
Success Vyapar Ltd and Neil Industries Ltd.
Rs.63,35,927/- (bogus LTCG and commission) + Rs.46,79,384/- (bogus unsecured loan and interest) 46 of 2021 2011-12 Rs.86,500/-
Success Vyapar Ltd and Neil Industries Ltd.
Rs.2,69,43,868/- (bogus unsecured loan and interest) + Rs.56,68,482/- (bogus unsecured loan and interest) 29 of 2021 (defective) 2014-15 Rs.38,37,442/-
Rs.6,01,00,000/- (bogus unsecured loans) Rs,1,82,27,831/- (interest disallowed) 13 of 2022 (defective) 2012-13 Rs.21,32,660/-
Rs.6,28,961/- (bogus LTCG) Rs.31,448/- (commission) Rs,2,00,000/- (bogus unsecured loans) 17 of 2022 2011-12 Rs.12,38,250/-
Rs.21,252/- (bogus LTCG) Rs.1,060/- (commission) Rs,25,00,000/- (bogus unsecured loans) 18 of 2022 2011-12 Rs.8,95,140/-
Rs.4,03,656/- (bogus LTCG) Rs.20,180/- (commission) Rs,17,00,000/- (bogus unsecured loans)
Creditors Income disclosed in ITR S. No. Name of the creditor A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 M/s Success Vyapar Ltd.
Rs.1586458 Rs.4781213 Rs.5032366 Rs.6429097 Not submitted M/s Neil Industries Ltd Not Submitted Rs.8125011 Rs.9662615 Not submitted Rs.12045007 Thus, from the above table, it is evident that, creditors companies have furnished very meager income to inspire the confidence of credit of huge amount of unsecured loans. Also, there is no agreement or the co-lateral security arrangements between the appellant and creditors companies. A careful, perusal of Bank statements of these two lenders reveal the astonishing similarly in the pattern of fund flow. It is invariably noted that the creditors account were deposited with cheque of equivalent or more amount of credit on the same date or prior to advancing the loan to the appellant company. Thus, the evidence submitted by the appellant does not inspire the confidence regarding credit capacity of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, especially considering the fact that, lenders have disclosed meager income in their returns and each credit of unsecured loans to the appellant company is preceded by the equivalent or more amount of deposits of credit on the same date or on the prior dates. Also, AO has recorded the finding of fact that, most of the lenders do not exist on the given address and are paper companies providing the accommodation entries of unsecured loans. Also, AO has dealt at length on the seized documents and the statements of directors of M/s. Success Vyapar Ltd. and M/s. Neil Industries Ltd., evidencing the non-genuine nature of transactions. Finding of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in WT No. 458/459 of 2015, wherein, it is held that, the creditor companies are dubious entities laundering the money in the garb of LTCG/share capital/share premium/unsecured loans. Thus, it is concluded that genuineness of the transaction and credit capacity of the creditors are unsubstantiated and transaction of unsecured loans are non-genuine. Appellant, on the other hand has not placed any material before the undersigned to dislodged the finding recorded by the AO. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and Circumstances of the case, it is concluded that, appellant has miserably failed to prove the credit capacity and genuineness of the transaction.
6.4 It is a settled preposition of law u/s 68 of the Act that, the initial burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove three vital ingredients u/s 68 of the act i.e. the identity, credit capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. In the present factual matrix of these cases, let us first, examine whether appellant has discharged the initial onus casted u/s 68 of the Act. Admittedly, appellant has filed the confirmation letters, ITRs and Bank statements of the creditors. However, mere filing of confirmation of ITRs or Bank statements is not sufficient to prove the credit capacity of creditors and genuineness of the transaction. On the other hand, AO has brought out the incriminating seized documents and statements of Directors of the alleged creditors i.e. M/s. Success Vyapar Ltd. and M/s. Neil Industries Ltd. who accepted on oath that, their companies are involved in providing the accommodation entries of LTCG/share capital/share premium and unsecured loans. All the incriminating evidence including statements of Directors of alleged creditors i.e. M/s Success Vyapar Ltd. and M/s. Neil Industries Ltd. have been confronted to the appellant, who could not submit any satisfactory explanation regarding the genuineness of the transaction and credit capacity of the creditors. Also, there is no agreement or the co-lateral security arrangements between the appellant and creditors companies. A careful, perusal of Bank statements of these two lenders reveal the astonishing similarity in the pattern of fund flow. It is invariably noted that the creditors account were deposited with cheque of equivalent or more amount of credit on the same date or prior to advancing the loan to the appellant company. Thus, the evidence submitted by the appellant does not inspire the confidence regarding credit capacity of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, especially considering the fact that, lenders have disclosed meager income in their returns and each credit of unsecured loans to the appellant company is preceded by the equivalent or more amount of deposits of credit on the same date or on the prior dates. Also, AO has recorded the finding of fact that, most of the lenders do not exist on the given address and are paper companies providing the accommodation entries of unsecured loan. Also, AO has dealt at length on the seized documents and the statements of directors of M/s. Success Vyapar Ltd. and M/s. Neil Industries Ltd. evidencing the non-genuine nature of transactions. Finding of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in WT No. 458/459 of 2015, wherein, it is held that, "the creditor companies are dubious entities laundering the money in the garb of LTCG/share capital/share premium/ unsecured loans." Thus, it is concluded that, genuineness of the transaction and credit capacity of the creditors are unsubstantiated and transaction of unsecured loans are non-genuine. Appellant, on the other hand has not placed any material before the undersigned to dislodged the finding recorded by the AO. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that, appellant has miserably failed to prove the credit capacity and genuineness of the transaction.