9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. - ITA No. 111/SRT/2020 & C.O. No.18/SRT/2020 (a/o ITA No.111/SRT/2020) - - - Dated:- 11-2-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Ramesh Malpani, C.A. For the Revenue : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [ CIT(A) for short] dated 09.01.2020 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12.The assessee on service of notice of appeal has filed its Cross Objection (CO), which in turn the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer made addition on account of unsecured loan under section 68 of the Act of ₹ 2.85 crores. Thereafter the case was reopened under section 147 on recording the reasons that the assessee paid interest of ₹ 23,29,482/- on the unsecured loan availed by assessee from different parties which was treated as bogus addition. The Assessing Officer after recording the reasons of reopening served notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2016. In response to notice under section 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 23.04.2016 declaring nil income and the same loss which was declared initially. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notice proceeded for assessment. The assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7) was furnished. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the validity of re-opening by taking view that if the Assessing Officer discovered of fund or satisfaction himself the taxable income has escaped assessment which would amount to say that he has reasoned to believe that such income has escaped assessment. Such justification of his belief is not to be judged from standard of prove requiring him for giving a final conclusion as mere belief is sufficient for initially of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. However, on merit assessee was allowed by Ld. CIT(A) by holding that in quantum assessment, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Surat in order No.CAS/1/121/2014-15 dated 28.06.2017 has already deleted the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. However, the case falls under the exceptional clause of 10(c) of the Circular No. 03 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by CBDT and clarification letter in F. No.279/misc/142/2007-ITJ dated 20.08.2018 and CBDT s latest Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR of the assessee strongly objected against the submission of Ld. Sr.DR of the Revenue. Ld. AR of the assessee submits that neither in the reasons recorded or while deciding the objection filed by the assessee against the re-opening, nowhere disclosed that there was any Audit Objection or that the assessment was re-opened on the basis of Audit Objection. The Revenue / Assessing Officer for the first time before the Tribunal has disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in other alternative submission, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that reopening was merely on change of opinion and the same was badly in law. To support his submission, Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 56 SC). 10. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of authorities below. Before adverting to the technical issue, let us consider the merit of the present case. We find that in the reassessment order passed under section 263 r.w.s. 147 dated 28.10.2016, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of alleged interest payment paid of ₹ 23,29,482/- on unsecured loan. We further find that the addition of unsecured loan was made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
