9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and applicable law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming that LAO has not applied mind and initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The notice u/s 148 is itself bad in law. The whole process of reopening i.e. reasons, approval and issuance of notice done was mechanical and there was totally non-application of mind making addition on wrong facts. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and applicable law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming that LAO's action of reopening the case u/s 148 and further initiating assessment proceeding u/s 147 of the act which is bad in law. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee re-filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 4,05,590/ -. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were complied with by assessee. Ultimately, the AO completed re-opened assessment vide order dated 30.03.2022 after making an addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 in respect of a loan of Rs. 5,50,000/- taken by assessee from 'M/s Jay Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd.' renamed as 'M/s Jay Ganga Exim Pvt. Ltd.' ["J"] in financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16 under consideration. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any success. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. We first take up Ground No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 633.50 8363.81 - 8997.32 5.50 1635 times 5. That the lender company is 'active' companies in ROC records till date. 6. Only reason for making the addition is borrowed satisfaction of AO relying on findings of investigation in different cases related to Shri Sharad Darak. 7. Copy of statement of Shri Sharad Darak which is foundation of the reopening and additions has not been confronted to Appellant therefore the addition based thereon is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on decision of SC in C. Vasantlal [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC). 8. Further inspite of specific request no opportunity to cross examine has been provided. In absence of such cross examination the addition made by AO based on statement is not tenable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the company "J" from whom the assessee took loan was one of the shell companies controlled by an accommodation entry provider 'Shri Sharad Dark' as accepted by 'Shri Sharad Dark' in statements before Investigation Wing. He submitted that the assessee seems to have not made any request before AO to provide cross-examination of 'Shri Sharad Darak'. Therefore, the claim of assessee that cross-examination was not provided is not valid. He prayed to uphold the addition made/upheld by lower authorities. 7. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the documents held on record including the orders of lower-authorities. After a careful consideration, we find as under: (i) The assessee has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to satisfy the requirement of section 68. The revenue authorities are unable to negate the documentary evidences relating to "J" filed by assessee. Thus, the assessee has filed sufficient documents to prove all three ingredients of section 68 i.e. the identity and creditworthiness of "J" and genuineness of loan transaction. (ii) The ITAT, Indore has already deleted additions made by AO based on statements of Shri Sharad Dark, in the hands of various other assessees in respect of loans taken from very same creditor "J". Two such decisions are M/s Global Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Central)- 1, Indore, IT(SS)A No. 170 to 174/Ind/2020 and ACIT Vs. Krishna Devcon Ltd. IT(SS)A No. 3 to 11/Ind/2022. (iii) The assessee has already repaid loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
