9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and void. 2. That the reasons recorded before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act are not bonafide and not proper. Hence, the assessment made on such invalid reasons should be quashed. 3. That the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income tax Act dated 07.12.2018 is bad in law and is against the provisions of the Income tax Act. Thus, the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 must be annulled and be treated as invalid assessment. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer as cash credit u/s 68 of the Income tax Act of Rs. 50,00,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case and giving the assessee a proper opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,00,000/- from one company namely M/s RKG Finvest Pvt. Ltd. The revenue alleged that as per the information received from the Investigation Wing that this company has been floated by the entry operators and is a dummy company involved in providing accommodation entry in the garb of ostensible business transactions though infact not conducting any business operations and as such the amounts received from M/s RKG Finvest Pvt. Ltd. are to be treated as bogus and taxable u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has issued notice u/s 133(6) to the lender company and sent Inspector for verification of the premises of the lender company. While the lender company sent reply to the AO by E-mail, the Inspector reported that the lender company was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To cross examine the genuineness and credit worthy of the transaction of the party, notice u/s 133(6) was send to M/s RKG Finvest on 27.11.2018 on the address i.e. 22, Rajendra Park, New Dehi-110060 as mentioned in Company Master Data as well as provided by the assessee company vide letter dated 12.11.2018 though Inspector of this Ward. Report of the Inspector is reproduced as below: INSPECTOR'S REPORT: "Report in the case of M/s RKG Finvest Ltd., address- 22, Rajindra Park, New Delhi -110060. As directed, I enquired the whereabouts of M /s RKG Finvest Ltd located at 22, Rajindra Park, New Delhi 110060 on 27.11.2018 to serve the notice U/s 133(6) of the IT Act, in the case of M/s Red Pro Motors Pvt. Ltd (formerly known as M/S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to the income of the assessee." 10. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the issue are as under: Date of Search /Survey in the case of S.K. Jain Group 14.09.2010 & 20.11.2010 Date of Receipt of Amount 23.02.2011 Date of Repayment 31.01.2012 Whether the information could be attributed to the seized/impounded material No Whether in such case, reopening can be based on the impounded material No Whether the information could be attributed to the post-search investigation Yes - STR based Whether M/s RKG Finvest Ltd. is considered as a dummy-sale company by the revenue Yes Value of the block of depreciable assets of M/s RKG Finvest Ltd. Rs. 2,09,02,868/- Depreciation claimed Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction or the creditworthiness of the lender. 12. We have examined each allegation of the revenue with regard to the material on record. The reasons u/s 148 started with the allegation that Rs. 4.83 Crs. has been received by the assessee doesn't commensurate with the business activity of the assessee company and it was the assessee's own income taken under the guise of unsecured loans from entry provider in view of cash. The AO has not brought anything on record to prove or to primarily support the allegation either in the form of any diary entry or statement. The material impounded and the evidences gathered on or before 20.11.2010 have been utilized to suspect the loan received on 23. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 20.11.1995 goes against the allegation of the AO that the assessee company is a dummy company. With regard to the reasons given by the ld. CIT (A) that the assessee has not made any effort to discharge the onus, we find that the assessee has submitted all the documents to discharge the primary onus along with details of repayment of the loan. Having received all the documents, the revenue failed to bring anything on record either by the way of statements recorded or by enquiries conducted or by any other evidence collected to rebut the evidences filed by the assessee. 13. In the instant case, the AO held that the assessee company is neither having any stock nor fixed assets and suspected that the company to be of a non-viable entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
