Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The appellant has filed his return of income at Rs.

Rs.5,05,50,660/- and the case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961.

4. That the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tac Act 1961 on a total income of Rs.26,22,77,702/- by making addition on account of unsecured loan from M/s. Cooper Commercial Pvt. Ltd of Rs. 4,51,00,000/-, commission on unsecured loan of Rs. 22,50,000/-, addition U/s 41(1) treating the sundry creditors as bogus liability of Rs. 16,14,46,148/, addition on account of extra profit on alleged shortage of stock of Rs. 25,52,798/-, disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1,13,096/- and disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-.

(Addition of Rs. 22,55,000/-)

21. That the appellant being aggrieved from the above additions went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above addition made by the ld.AO.

22. The finding of the ld.CIT(A) is being reproduced as under:

"6.4 The undersigned finds that there is no difference in finding of the order of Assessing Officer for both the assessment years and the lender being same the addition of Rs. 4,51,00,000/- made u/s 68 on account of unsecured loan and addition of Rs. 22,55,000/- on account of commission estimated @5% on this unsecured loan, both are on similar facts and issue which has already been decided by me in the AY 2017-18. It is further noteworthy that the same lender i.e. M/s. Cooper Commercial Pvt Ltd. gave unsecured loan of Rs. 12,05,00,000/- to the appellant in FY 2015-16 and the addition made by the AO in AY 2016-17 has also been deleted by my predecessor Ld. CIT Appeal. In appeal no. CIT(A)-

7.33 Further, the addition on account of commission on unsecured loan of Rs.40,90,000/- estimated @5% on the alleged bogus unsecured loan is consequential addition made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant has categorically denied such incurrence and has contended that no addition can be made without giving any cogent evidence or material to corroborate the allegation that such commission had been made. The appellant has further relied upon the order of Commissioner(Appeal) which has been considered during the appellate proceeding for the Assessment year 2015- 16 where Shri Manish Agarwal Chartered Accountant who was alleged to have received commission on the transaction has also denied the averment of the appellant statement recorded during the survey which has also been taken in due consideration by the then Commissioner (Appeals) in appellants own case and finds reference in the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) for Assessment year 2015-16. In Assessment year 2016-17 also the Commissioner (Appeal) made detailed observations in the matter of this unsecured loan and the alleged commission estimated on the unsecured loan, these observations are followed in this year too. The undersigned finds that the addition of commission on unsecured loan made by the Assessing Officer is consequential to the addition of unsecured loan. Therefore, in consequence to above finding the addition becomes unwarranted and is to be deleted.

9. Now coming to assessment year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016- 17, we find that out of these three years, two years i.e. 2013-14 and 2014-15 were reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year 2013-14, the addition has been made to the extent of Rs.4,70,50,000/- by treating the unsecured loan from M/s Wise Financial Advisor Services Pvt. Ltd. as bogus and in assessment year 2014-15, the amount involved is Rs.4,56,00,000/- which is from M/s Silver Agencies Pvt. Ltd. During these years also, the assessee had filed the necessary evidences in support of the genuineness of the receipt of unsecured loans. During assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer, vide notice dated 19/02/2018, placed at pages 46 to 47 of the paper book, required the assessee to explain as to why the amount of unsecured loan, received from M/s Wise Financial Advisor Services Pvt. Ltd. along with 5% expenses incurred for arranging such entry may not be added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee replied to this notice vide letter dated 21/02/2018, a copy of which is placed at page 51 of paper book and submitted that assessee had taken unsecured loan and copy of confirmation of account, ITR, bank statement and audited balance sheet were attached. Such documents in the form of confirmation of account, ITR of the lender along with the audited financial account and copy of bank statement are placed at pages 52 to 76 of the paper book. The copy of assessment order of the unsecured loan creditor for assessment year 2014-15 is placed at pages 79 to 83 of the paper book. The Assessing Officer, during these three years, appointed commission u/s 131 of the Act and obtained his report wherein the Income Tax Inspector submitted that there were no such persons at the addresses and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made the addition. The learned CIT(A) however, has deleted the addition by appreciating the entire factual matrix whereby he held that the report of the Income Tax Inspector was vague and was not obtained in accordance with law and further held that the necessary evidences were duly filed before the Assessing Officer. The findings of learned CIT(A) in these three years are similar except difference in the amounts. For the sake of completeness, the findings of learned CIT(A) for assessment year 2013-14 have been made part of this order as below: