9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n entry in the garb of unsecured loan. The view of the authorities below is duly supported by the decision in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. [ 2019 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was duly expounded that by merely producing documentary evidence assessee is not relieved of its onus to prove that it is not a party to the receipt of accommodation entries, if Assessing Officer's enquiry duly prove the bogus nature of transaction. Accordingly, we don't find any infirmity in the well reasoned orders of the authorities below. Accordingly, we confirm the same. - Appeals filed by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.2828/Mum/2018, ITA No.2829/Mum./2018 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbai, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant prays that the said addition is unjustified and may please be deleted. 4. Brief facts : since facts are identical we are referring to facts and figures from A.Y. 2009-10:- The facts of the case in brief are that the assesses company is engaged in the business of construction. The assessee company e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 27.09.2009 declaring total loss for the year at Rs.Nil. The case was reopened under section 147 on the basis of information received from the office of ADIT(lnv.) Unit-4(2), Mumbai and notice u/s.148 was issued on 29.03.2016 after recording the reasons, requiring the assessee to file the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation given by the Investigation Wing, during the course of survey proceedings, in the case of M/s. Nina Concrete Systems Pvt. Ltd., the Director of M/s.Nina Concrete Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Mehul Kirit Parikh has admitted to and given statement under oath on 29.09,2014 that of his group companies, M/s.Vijay Project Consultants and Land Developers Ltd. i.e. the assessee company, has received unsecured loans from bogus parties of ₹ 35,00,000/- in the financial year relevant to A.Y.2009-10. In view of such facts, the authorized representative of the assessee, was asked by the AO to explain as to why these loans claimed to have been received during the financial year relevant to A.Y.2009-10, should not be treated as bogus and thereby dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition holding as under :- 6.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, discussion of the AO in the assessment order, oral contentions and written submission of the appellant and material available on record, it is seen that assessee in the elaborate submission which is more on the generality of the issue and the case laws, has not rebutted the facts regarding the statement given by Shri Mehul Kirit Parikh, who incidentally is also a Director of the assessee company. It is this statement which has been referred to by the AO at para 5.2 of the assessment order. In the submission, the assessee has stated that they have provided copy of confirmation of loan, copy of balance-sheet, profit and loss account of the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been given of ₹ 25,00,000/- to the assesses. During the year, the assessee has also shown a loan to have been received of ₹ 10,00,000/- from Parekh Estate and Properties Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s. 133{6) to this party as well which was returned back unserved. When confronted with this fact, the Id. AR of the appellant could not give any satisfactory reply to the Assessing Officer. It is seen from the details and documents submitted by the appellant during the course of instant proceedings, that the so-called confirmation submitted in respect of Parekh Estate and Properties Pvt. Ltd. was a photocopy of a computer-generated sheet and in the accompanying balance-sheet at Schedule 6, the loans and adva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Director of the company admitting to have received such cash credits from the bogus parties and further assertion made during the instant proceedings that they are not retracting from the said statement dated 29.09.2014 of Shri Mehul Kint Parikh, Director of the assessee company, clearly prove that the questioned sum of ₹ 35,00,000/- received from such parties i.e. Awesome Packaging Pvt. Ltd, and Parekh Estate and Properties Pvt. Ltd. is nothing but a cash credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Act and therefore, making addition of the questioned sum is found to be justifiable and is accordingly, upheld. Ground No.l is accordingly, dismissed. 6. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
