9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Bhanushali and ₹ 20,00,000/- from Ms. Tulsiben Bhanushali is concerned. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed the assessee to file the copies of confirmation and cheques before the AO as delineated at para 4.1 hereinbefore. Thus we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 141/MUM/2018 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) For the Appellant : Mr. B. Satyanarayan Raju, DR For the Respondent : Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Lasani, AR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax (Inv.), Mumbai, noticed that a total amount of ₹ 14,78,00,000/- has been credited in the bank account of the assessee from various concerns including credits from the group concern i.e. Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On that basis, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2016 to the assessee. In response to a query raised by the AO during the reassessment proceedings, the assessee filed a reply dated 19.12.2016, which is reproduced as under: With reference to the above subject matter and as directed vide your aforesaid notice we confirm that the amount received from various parties namely M/s Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rashmikant M. Shah from Dharmendra Bhanushali Tulsi Bhanu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - from Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. is concerned, the AO has accepted the claim of the appellant that the said sum was received from Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. by the appellant. However, the only objection of the AO was that the source of funds in the hands of Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. has not been explained by the appellant. Since this is a case for repayment of loan given by the appellant, there is no requirement for the appellant to prove the source of funds in the hands of Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 13,48,50,000/- made in the assessment order in respect of receipt of ₹ 13,48,50,000/- from Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. 4.1 As regards the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.04.2013 effective from the AY 2013-14 onwards. This appeal in question pertains to AY 2009-10, therefore, during the subject assessment year, there was no requirement to explain the source of source. In this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 819 of 2015) and Pr. CIT v. M/s SDB Estate Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1356 of 2015). The Ld. counsel further submits that it has discharged the onus placed upon it u/s 68 by filing confirmation of account copies from M/s Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for both the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the year of payment and the year of receipt ; the bank account of the said Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
