9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment order would mention that the petitioner had taken loan from 28 persons. The transaction of 5 persons were not put to notice to the petitioner for initiating its response. Unless and until the petitioner was not put to notice, in respect of the transaction of the aforesaid 5 persons, there was no occasion for him to give any response in respect of the proposed additions. Therefore we find to the extend of the addition of amount of loan advanced by the aforesaid 5 persons with the return of income of the petitioner under Section 68, is not in accordance with law and the same has vitiated, the assessment order impugned in the present writ petition to that extent. Present writ petition is disposed of, and the matter is remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en placed on record as Exts.P1, P4 and P5, contained the chart of 22 persons from whom the petitioner had accepted deposits on extend of Rs. 1,28,08,364/-. It is also mentioned that on the confirmation of depositors, deposits details ledger and bank account, it was noticed that the assessee had taken loan from 45 lenders. Out of the 45 lenders, only 7 lenders had filed their returns of income. Remaining 38 lenders were not assessed to tax. It is also noticed from the comparison of letters filed in Form 3CD for the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 that the assessee had received new loan from 22 parties, who were not assessed to tax and their details had been given in the show cause notice dated 05.12.2022. 2. The assessee could fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 133(6). 5. Subsequently, the case was referred to the verification unit to identify and verify the creditworthiness of the lenders. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 05.12.2022, as mentioned in Ext. P1, was issued and served upon the petitioner- assessee, who was asked to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness with proper documentary evidence regarding the loan advanced to the petitioner by the parties. In response to the said notice, the petitioner had submitted documentary evidence of some of the lenders. On examination of the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner, the creditworthiness of 17 lenders were found satisfactory. However, the creditworthiness and genuineness of loan from rest of the lenders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner has remedy of filing the appeal against the said assessment order and this court should not entertain the writ petition in view of the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order available to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner may take all grounds which are taken before this court and the appellate authority will consider the appeal on merit and appropriate order will be passed. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced. From Ext. P1, it is evident that only the names of 22 persons were mentioned, from whom, the petitioner had taken fresh loan in the assessment year 2021-2022. However, the assessment order would mention that the petitioner had taken loan from 28 persons. The t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
