O.P. Kant ORDER
1. This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi, Dated 25.04.2016, for the A.Y. 2013-2014, on the following grounds:
1. "That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.00 crores made u/s. 68 of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances as the assessee was ultimate beneficiary has taken loan from dubious company M/s. Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. where source of fund remain unexplained.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.00 crores u/s. 68 of the Act, despite that the assessee has failed to prove the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction which was in turn a accommodation entry from intermediary dubious company M/s. Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in ignoring the fact that the source of funds which came as unsecured loans in the assessee company were clearly bogus as has been admitted by the entry operator Sh. Himanshi Verma, on oath".
2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the Orders of the authorities below.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed return of income on 23.09.2013 showing loss of Rs. 35,53,560/-. The A.O. noted that in assessment year under appeal the assessee company has received an amount of unsecured loan of Rs. 2 crores from M/s. Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., The A.O. noted back ground of the case with regard to bogus accommodation entry provided by various entities controlled by Shri S.K. Jain and Shri V.K. Jain and Investigation conducted by Investigation Wing of the Department. The A.O. has given an opportunity to the assessee to prove creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction and required the assessee to produce Director Shri Kishore Kumar Munzal, Director of M/s. Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., and Shri Atul Khandelwal, C.A. who has arranged the funds in the matter. The case was adjourned to 30.12.2015. However, both the above persons were not produced. The A.O. after considering the fact that burden is upon the assessee to prove the ingredients of Section 68 of the I.T. Act i.e., identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction, found that assessee failed to prove the same, therefore, addition of Rs. 2 crores was made against the assessee under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3.1. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the written submissions of the assessee Dated 13.04.2016 in the appellate order and deleted the addition by giving the following findings:
"7. I have carefully considered the above submissions and find that the following facts are uncontroversial and undisputed:
a) That the assessment of AY 2012-13 of M/s. Varrenyam Securities Private Limited was framed by DCIT, CC-20, New Delhi (the same AO in the case of the appellant) determining its total income at Rs. 25,11,04,450/- vide his order u/s. 143(3) dated 24.03.2015;
b) That M/s. Varrenyam Securities Private Limited is a much bigger company than the appellant company;
c) That the appellant company had taken a loan of Rs. 26.85 crores from; M/s. Varrenyam Securities Private Limited and returned Rs. 20,15,58,047/- during the year 2011-12;
d) That a new loan of Rs. 2.00 crores was taken by the appellant company, which was fully repaid through banking channels with interest;
e) The aforesaid interest was claimed by the appellant and allowed by the........