9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of reopening, the only requirement is that Ld.AO should have specific tangible information which indicate possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more is required at this stage to reopen the case of the assessee. The information so received, in our considered opinion, was sufficient tangible material. Therefore, legal grounds raised by Ld. AR stand rejected. Upon perusal of rectification order u/s 154, it could be gathered that the director of M/s Gateway Leasing Private Limited appeared before Ld. AO and his statement was recorded on oath u/s 131. In the recorded statement, the fact of advancing loan to the assessee as well as repayment was duly accepted. Upon perusal of paper-book as placed before us, it could be gathered that the assessee has duly filed ledger account of the party along with name, address, PAN of the lender, details of brokers who arranged loan, securities offered, term sheet / sanction letter, Board Resolution, Inter-corporate deposit receipt, pledge agreement and various other similar documents in support of the genuineness of the loan transaction. The loan was fully paid on 21/05/2010 along with interest. The transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act which was reopened merely on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing and without independent application of mind by the learned Assessing Officer. c) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act without appreciating that the learned Assessing Officer had disposed off the objections in general and without properly meeting the objections raised. 2. Addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- u/s. 68 on account of unexplained cash credit a) Without prejudice to the above and without admitting, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- being loan taken from M/s. Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd. ('GLPL') against pledge of promoters' shares u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and without due application of mind to the explanation and documentary evidences placed on record. b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly, it was opined that the assessee failed to establish the identity and genuineness of both the entities. Since the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of establishing the genuineness of loan transactions, the amount of ₹ 100 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 while framing assessment on 29/12/2017. 3.3 However, this order has subsequently been rectified u/s 154 on 12/02/2018 in view of the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12, Shri Anil Chokhani (director of both the entities) appeared before Ld. AO and his statement was recorded on oath u/s 131. Shri Anil Chokhani confirmed that the loan of ₹ 50 Lacs was given by M/s Gateway Leasing Private Limited to assessee on 02/12/2009 and the same was repaid on 21/05/2010. However, it was noted by Ld. AO that another shell company namely M/s Anushree Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. was merged with this entity on 01/04/2009 and the loan was extended by Gateway Leasing Private Limited to the assessee subsequently on 02/12/2009. Therefore, this entity was also a shell company involved in the business of accommodation entries and these facts would strength ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficially inflated market price. v. The mere submission of the confirmation or bank transaction copy of/from the Lender was not sufficient to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act. 6.2.22 In view of above facts and that no further evidences or arguments have been put forth by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings. It is held that no interference is called for in the decision of assessing officer as the appellant has failed to discharge the onus required under Section 68 of the Act and the Assessing Officer was justified in added the amounts to the appellant's income of ₹ 50,00,000/-. Therefore, addition u/s 68 of the Act is confirmed. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings Adjudication 5. So far as the issue of validity of reassessment proceeding is concerned, we concur with the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) in view of the fact that subsequent to completion of assessment u/s 143(3), the Ld. AO was clinched with specific information which indicated possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n response to notice u/s 133(6). Thus, the assessee had duly discharged the onus of proving the identity of the lender, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the loan transaction. This being so, the impugned additions are not sustainable in law. By deleting the same, we allow ground no.2 of the appeal. The appeal stand partly allowed. Assessee s Appeal, ITA No.7425/Mum/2019, AY 2011-12 7. The only ground urged in the appeal is interest disallowance of ₹ 1.21 Lacs as paid by the assessee to M/s Gateway Leasing Private Limited. An assessment for the year was similarly framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 12/02/2018. Since the loan taken by the assessee from M/s Gateway Leasing Private Limited was held to be bogus in AY 2010-11, the interest paid on this loan for ₹ 1.21 Lacs was added back to the income of the assessee. The same, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is in further challenge before us. Since we have deleted the quantum addition in AY 2010-11, the interest paid by the assessee would be an allowable deduction. We order so. The appeal stand partly allowed. Revenue s Appeals for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 8. The grievance of the revenue in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
