9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count, bank statement, ledger account in the books of assesse of lenders, ledger account of assessee in the books of lenders. The assessee also furnished evidence of repayment of loan. All such facts are accepted by the assessing Officer. Still the Assessing Officer instead of giving any comment on the merit of various evidences, objected only on the ground that such evidences were not furnished before him during the assessment. We find that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for non-appearance before Assessing Officer for non-compliance. Once the assessee has filed evidence which was directly related with issue under consideration, before the Assessing Officer as well as before the first appellate authority, then it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to consider and gave his opinion or report on the merit of issue. We find that the filing of various evidences during the remand proceeding is not in dispute. Further the Assessing Officer has not disputed the repayment of loan in subsequent assessment year and only took the plea that the principle of res judicata is not applicable on income tax proceedings. We find that in CIT Vs Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji [ 2013 (12) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions, bank statement and copies of the ROIs filed by the lenders and thereby proving the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the transactions. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), NaFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not appreciating the facts that the unsecured loans were repaid to the lenders in the subsequent years, and these facts were duly proved by the appellant with the relevant documents. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), NaFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not considering the loss of Rs.7,98,928/- under section 66 of the Act, which was filed by the appellant in its return of income for the relevant assessment year while computing the assessed income under section 144 of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), NaFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity, the assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction of loan of Rs. 3.40 crores and the same was treated as cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 4. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised a plea that the assessment completed under Section 144 of the Act is bad in law and may be quashed. The assessee has not received notice of hearing as their premises was lying closed and possession of entire factory premises was taken over by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The assessee also challenged the addition of Rs. 3.40 crores. The validity of reopening under Section 144 of the Act was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) by taking a view that the assessee was given adequate opportunity by the Assessing Officer before completing assessment under Section 144 of the Act. Against the addition of Rs. 3.40 crores, the assessee filed detailed written submission. Alongwith submission, the assessee also furnished confirmation of lender, ledger account, bank statement, income tax return of both the lenders. The assessee also submitted that unse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rule 46A of the Rules as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer during the assessment. On the plea of assessee that the assessee has not received notice of hearing as their premises was lying closed and possession of entire factory premises was taken over by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not filed any evidence and their connection with Metal Links Alloys Ltd.. The remand report of Assessing Officer was shared with assessee, however, the assessee has not filed any response, thus the additional evidence produced by assessee cannot be admitted as the condition mentioned in the Rule 46A of the Rules are not satisfied. The ld. CIT(A) accepted that during the remand report, the assessee produced confirmation, later on identity of lenders, balance sheet and statement of receipt and proof of repayment of loan in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) held that copies of return of income of lenders were not produced during the remand proceedings, therefore, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of lender was not proved. On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terated that no cognizance of such evidences can be taken, as such notices were not filed during the assessment. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has shown sufficient cause as they were prevented due to non-service of notice as the possession of factory premises was taken over by the order of NCLT. Such fact is sufficient to prove the bonafide of assessee. The Assessing Officer despite accepting the fact that the assessee furnished complete details to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions objected for consideration of evidence only on the ground that such evidence was not filed during the assessment. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that once the repayment of loan is accepted, no addition in the year under consideration is to be made on account of cash credit. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws: CIT Vs Ayachi Chandrashekar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) Pr.CIT Vs Amber Tradecorp (P) Ltd. (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Guj) Pr.CIT Vs Ojas Tarmake (P) Ltd. (2023) 156 taxmann.com 75 (Guj) CIT Vs Apex Therm Packaging (P) Ltd. (2014) 42 taxmann.com 473 (Guj) DCIT Vs Rohini Bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... longwith submission, the assessee also filed requisite details of lenders in furnishing their details including, name, address, ledger account, bank account, confirmation of parties. The Assessing Officer has not issued any notice to carry out any further investigation or to bring any adverse material rather objected about the admissibility of additional evidence at the first appellate stage. Though, the Assessing Officer in para 6,7, and 8 of his remand report, accepted that the assessee has furnished confirmation of bank account, bank statement, ledger account in the books of assesse of lenders, ledger account of assessee in the books of lenders. The assessee also furnished evidence of repayment of loan. All such facts are accepted by the assessing Officer. Still the Assessing Officer instead of giving any comment on the merit of various evidences, objected only on the ground that such evidences were not furnished before him during the assessment. We find that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for non-appearance before Assessing Officer for non-compliance. Once the assessee has filed evidence which was directly related with issue under consideration, before the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
