9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u, President And Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Appellant : S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vikas Jain, Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi dated 11.01.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in enhancing the Income of the appellant 10,12,50,000/- against the returned loss of(-) ₹ 2,73,530/-. 2. That notice u/s 251 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and enhancement made by the CIT(A) are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in making enhancement of ₹ 9,25,00,000/-. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that transaction which were subject matter of enhancement were never considered by an A.O. from the point of view of taxability. 4. That CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in making an enhancement and sustaining addition under section 68 of the Act. The CIT (A) has failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, found that the assessee had received unsecured loan from eight parties during the year. The Assessing Officer after considering the documentary evidence, made addition of ₹ 87,00,000/- out of the loan and advances of ₹ 9,72,50,000/-. Hence, the AO made addition of ₹ 87,00,000/- and added the same into the income of the assessee thereby, the AO assessed the income at ₹ 84,26,470/- against the loss of ₹ 2,73,530/-. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who during the course of appellate proceedings, issued a notice of enhancement regarding remaining loan and advances that were accepted by the AO. In response thereto, the assessee field its explanation. However, the explanation filed by the assessee was not found sufficient and Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to make enhancement of ₹ 9,72,50,000/-. However, it is noteworthy that Ld.CIT(A) also issued direction to the AO to verify the loan amount received by the assessee during other Assessment Year and take necessary steps to bring the same for taxation. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The assessee has raised multiple grounds howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed loans were taken from Shri Amul Aggarwal of ₹ 10,00,000/- and ₹ 1,25,00,000/- from M/s. Mithilanchal Investment Finance Pvt. Ltd. and ₹ 27,50,000/- from Shri Sudhir Kumar pertain to earlier years. He contended that no inquiry was conducted by the authority below. He further contended that there was ongoing litigation between Hirise Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. and the assessee. He contended that that proceedings were initiated by Hirise Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. after passing of impugned order by Ld.CIT(A) and the same was not available with the assessee. He further submitted that the following documents may be admitted as additional evidences for fair disposal of appeal:- a. First Information Report u/s 154 of Cr.P.C. dated 09.03.2019. b. Letter dated 11.01.2019 for cancellation of space/Unit allotted to Hirise Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. c. Legal notice dated 21.01.2020 along with annexures. d. Reply to Legal Notice dated 01.02.2020. He contended that the impugned order was passed without making any inquiry and verifying the material facts. 8. Per contra, Ld.CIT DR pointed out that the grievance of the assessee is baseless. He contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that these transactions relate to earlier has been accepted and direction issued to AO to verify the same. In case of amount received from Pearl Creation, no supporting evidence was provided proving genuineness of the transaction, identity and creditworthiness of the party. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity into the finding of the Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. The grounds related to these additions are dismissed. 11. In addition to the aforesaid, Ld.CIT(A) had also issued show cause to the assessee for enhancement of income by proposing to make addition in respect of amount received from Hirise Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. of ₹ 8 crore, M/s. Mithilanchal Investment Finance Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 1.25 crore which was ultimately enhanced. Out of this amount related to M/s. Mithilanchal Investment Finance Pvt. Ltd., the following direction was issued by Ld.CIT(A):- 19.5. In view of the averment/contention of the AR (though unsubstantiated) that ₹ 1.25 crores (from M/s. Mithilanchal Investment and Finance Pvt. Ltd.) was received on 30.06.2011, the AO is directed under section 150(1) to examine the case under section 147/148 for the relevant assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs each. Description of one of the entry shows that the repayment was actually to M/s. Mist Avenue Private Limited (and not to the said party). As such the provisions of section 68 apply in terms of credit entries. Therefore, entire credit of ₹ 8 crores is considered for the addition by way of enhancement. ii) In the letter dated 16.12.2016, addressed to the appellant, it has been mentioned that notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to this party but no response has been received. Summons, under section 131(1A) had been issued to this party for personal deposition. The letter further asked the appellant to produce the said party alongwith copies of statement of the bank account and other documents (of the said party) mentioned therein. However, neither the party was produced, nor any copy of the bank statement of the paid party was produced, nor any copy of other requisitioned documents was produced. During the present appellate proceedings, also, the appellant failed to produce this party. iii) During the present appellate proceedings, in spite of various opportunities, the appellant did not claim that any copy of bank ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is party either before the AO or at least before the undersigned. Interestingly, it is also noted that the signature on the purported confirmation of ledger account and confirmation letter, which are supposed to be signed by the same person are actually differing. Signature on the confirmation on the ledger account Sd/- Signature on the letter confirming balance on 31.03.2014 Sd/- v) Certainly, from the above documents {which have been produced as a result of various opportunities afforded to the appellant to produce any document to prove that before AO, it had discharged the onus of proving identity creditworthiness of this party as well as genuineness of the transactions}, the onus of proving identity creditworthiness of this party as well as genuineness of the transactions cannot be said to have been discharged. Therefore, it is held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving identity creditworthiness of this party as well as genuineness of these transactions. 12.1. It is seen that Ld.CIT(A) enhanced income on the ground that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
