9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving any reply of the assessee on record. To decide the issue once for all assessee must be provided with an opportunity of being heard. So we hereby allow the additional evidence sought to be led by the assessee and case is remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after considering the additional evidence and by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 244 & 245/M/2022 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2022 - SHRI KULDIP SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya , A. R. Revenue by : Shri Kiran P. Unavekar , D. R. ORDER Per : Kuldip Singh , Judicial Member : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by your good office) Reiterating Pronouncement of Judgment, we have relied upon in personal hearing letters:-(Attaching judgment of H.K. Pujara in ITAT Appeal) ACIT vs. M/s. H.K. Pujara Builders, Mumbai Tribunal, ITA No. 930/MUM/2017 dated 31-10-2018 and ACIT vs. Shreedham Builders, Bombay Tribunal, ITA No. 5589/Mum/2017, dated. 22-6-2018, AY 2012-13, where Tribunal confirmed the Order of Commissioner Appeal which stated if Assessee proved identity, creditworthiness as well as genuineness of transactions, then the Assessee had discharged its primary onus on providing complete details in respect of loan transactions evidencing that the loans are not bogus. And where additions were made to Income of Assessee purely based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider the fact that the Appellant has to pay the interest to the party from whom loan is taken. 3. The Learned Commissioner Appeal failed to consider the relevant case laws submitted during the assessment proceeding. 4. The order of the Commissioner Appeal making the aforesaid Addition is contradictory in law and facts of the case. 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are: the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business as builder and developer. During the scrutiny proceedings Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has claimed interest payment of Rs. 2,57,003/- and Rs. 13,81,794/- to M/s. Rajat Diamond Exim P. Ltd. and M/s. Frontline Diamond P. Ltd. in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of assumptions and uncorroborated material collected during the search and seizure operation in case of Gautam Jain Group that the assessee has received the loan through proper channel duly accounted for in the books of account which he has partially repaid and that assessee intends to bring on file additional evidence inter alia a copy of retraction affidavit filed by Shri Dharmendar Kumar Bhave, Director of M/s. Rajat Diamond Exim P. Ltd. and M/s. Frontline Diamond P. Ltd. and being proprietor of M/s. Rajan Gems lender of the assessee which could not be filed before the lower authority. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue relied on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
