9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been considered and explained i.e. how to read the alphabets and the number in the entry. AO based on the said explanation proceeded to interpret the impugned entries as pertaining to the assessee. However we notice from the assessment order that the AO has not brought out any specific finding on how the impugned entries are linked to the assessee and whether any other seized material other than what is shared with the assessee have been used to aid the interpretation. Decided in favour of the assessee. - Shri Br Baskaran, Accountant Member And Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi For the Revenue : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SR DR ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.10.2023 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2012-13/10121602 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] u/s. 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as Act ] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2013-14, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee s appeal against assessment order dated 26.03.2022. 2. The brief facts s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2021, only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, of the Income Tax Department, without there being any independent and valid reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and therefore the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 as well as the asst. order flowing therefrom was invalid and bad in law and was required to be quashed. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the I. Tax Act 1961, inspite of the Id AO failing to first dispose the objections raised by the appellant to reopening of assessment, which failure on the part of the Id AO results in the asst. order framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B to be invalid and bad in law and required to be struck down on that account. 4. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made u/s 69/69A of the LT Act, 1961, as unexplained cash, in respect of the alleged cash loan lent to Shri Nilesh Bharani/M/s. Evergreen Enterprises, without any concrete evidence incriminating the appellant nor considering the explanation that the appellant had not entered into any cash transaction with the said parties and accordingly the addition of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in which the entries were to be read. The AO based on the above information was of the view that the entries as tabulated in the earlier part of this order pertains to the cash loans given by the assessee to Shri Nilesh Bharani and accordingly issued notice reopening the assessment. The assessee submitted before the AO that the cash loans as alleged by the AO do not pertain to the assessee and that the assessee has not entered into any such transactions. The assessee has also requested for cross examining the parties from whom statements were recorded. However the AO has relied on the statements recorded proceeded to make addition towards the alleged cash loans given by the assessee as unexplained under section 69A of the Act. Before the CIT(A), the assessee raised legal issues with regard to the addition and also contended the issue on merits stating that the AO has not brought anything incriminating the assessee to substantiate the addition. We in this regard notice that the CIT(A) has not given any specific findings regarding the contentions on merits while dismissing the appeal. 9. From the perusal of seized material and the statements recorded, we notice that the accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessee s name is also appearing in the same diary in coded word. For clarity ready reference, we are again reproducing the entries relied upon by the Assessing Officer- i) Code 'E/11/N'- ii) Name as per Ledger 'NENSIBHI ELLA' iii) Coded Amount (in '000)-32500 iv) Contact person 'NANCYBHAI - v) F.Y. 2011-12 10. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not entertained the Assessee s request for cross examination of Shri Nilesh Bharani / M/s Evergreen Enterprises and also it is a fact that Shri Nilesh Bharani subsequently retracted his statement. Therefore, his statement made earlier become doubtful as claimed by the Assessee and cannot be relied as substantive evidence. Even otherwise, we have failed to understand that how the name as mentioned in the said diary, as 'NENSIBHI ELLA' can be attributed to the Assessee s name. Further, how the coded amount of Rs. 32,500 can be construed as Rs. 3.25.000,00/- Further, how the Assessee is connected with the said narration of entries written in diary. Further, as per Assessee s claim, the mobile number noted in said diary is even otherwise do not belong to the Assessee and the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
