9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eate an impression of genuineness in a transaction while actually is impermissible in law. When this was the situation, and when appellant was sounded, it was the duty of Appellant to provide with further evidence to prove that the transaction was genuine. Since the Appellant has not succeeded in proving a tainted transaction with additional evidence, am constrained to accept the conclusion of the Assessing Officer as in order - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer was duty bound to provide an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Goutham Jam as his statement was recorded behind the back of Your Appellant, that too during the search and seizure action at his place and not during any assessment proceedings of Your Appellant. 4.1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 since the Assessing Officer failed to issue summons and examine the lenders under Section 131 of the Act. This tantamounts to violation of essential rules of Natural Justice 4.2 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td., a Public Limited company Listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., by issue of cheque of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd.; and the assessee was allotted 20000 shares on application by credit in his Depository Account 5.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant had discharged initial onus by giving particulars of transactions, all transactions took place through regular banking channels, had proved the genuineness of the transactions and also the fact that the Appellant had repaid the loan 5.3. The Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) ought to have found that the loan received from Shri Goutham Jam & Others were by Bank Transfer through RTGS reflected in the bank account of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''). Subsequently based on the information received from DGIT (Investigation) Mumbai that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by one Shri. Gautam Jain & Others (Surat Diamond Concerns), the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 28.03.2014. Subsequently, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(3) Chennai vide order dated 16.03.2015 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of ₹ 6,17,463/- being unsecured money received from M/s. Mihir Diamonds treating it as accommodation entries rejecting the contention of the assessee that it is genuine tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in order. Therefore I confirm the addition of 6,17,463/- made by the Assessing Officer''. We do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 3154/CHNY/2018 for assessment year 2007-2008 stands dismissed. ITA Nos.295 & 296/Chny/2019, for Assessment years 2007- 08 of Shri. Ashish Kumar A. Mehta and Smt. Veena Kumari A Mehta. 10. Since, the facts in the present appeals are identical to the facts in ITA No.3154/Chny/2018, for assessment year 2007-2008, for the reasons mentioned therein, we dismiss the appeals on the above lines indicated in appeal ITA No.3154/Chny/2019 supra. Hence, the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed. 11. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
