Chandra Mohan Garg ORDER
Chandra Mohan Garg, Member (J)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.07.2019 of the CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and e-filed it's return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring loss of Rs. 1,24,94,251/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) dated 27.09.2013 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to the said notice, the Authorised Representative of the assessee company appeared before the A.O. and filed requisite details which are noted by the A.O. in the assessment order. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the assessee company has received unsecured loans from Associates of the companies i.e., Rs. 19,55,000/- received Shamken Spinners Ltd., on various dates through A/c payee cheques and Rs. 13,12,859/- received from Shamken Multifab Ltd., on various dates through A/c payee cheques and Rs. 10,000/- from Mr. Sanjay Chaturvedi on 05.12.2011 vide A/c payee cheque No. 048463, totalling to Rs. 32,77,859/-. The A.O. called the assessee to prove the genuineness of the lender of unsecured loans. Since the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidences like ITR, Bank A/c, confirmation etc., the A.O. made addition of Rs. 32,77,859/- on account of unsecured loans under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 besides making addition on account of other expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,29,973/-, addition on account of depreciation of Rs. 3,12,13,605/- under section 32 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,25,35,040/- under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as against the returned loss of Rs. 1,24,94,251/-. The A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
2.1. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 16.07.2019 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds:
"1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has grossly erred in upholding the addition made by the learned AO of Rs. 13,12,859/- u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of the payment made by M/s. Shamken Multifab Ltd. on behalf of the assessee without appreciating that such company is an associate company of the assessee and is listed on stock exchanges and payment made by such company on behalf of the assessee has duly been reflected in the audited financials of M/s. Shamken Multifab Ltd.
2. That while upholding the addition, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has grossly erred failing to appreciate that payment made by M/s. Shamken Multifab Ltd. on behalf of the assessee were in respect of genuineness business expenses, and incurring of such expenses has not been disputed.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has grossly erred in upholding the addition made by the learned AO of Rs. 19,55,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of the sum received the assessee from M/s. Shamken Spinners Ltd. without appreciating that such company is an associate company of the assessee and is also listed on stock exchanges and sum advanced to the assessee has duly been reflected in the audited financials of M/s. Shamken Spinners Ltd.
4. Th........