Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 205 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - addition made on account of unsecured loan taken - addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- There was no obligation on the part of the Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons recorded along with the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee himself could request for the reasons after the expiry of the said period of six year and the reasons were furnished within a period of less than 4 months. This cannot be treated as unreasonable time and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (2008 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the reasons were asked within the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the same before the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence, the reassessment proceedings are valid in law. Addition on account unsecured loans - Held that:- It is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the transactions in question are merely book entries and the allegation made against the assessee company is that the assessee had provided cash to M/s Nishant Finvest P. Ltd. and M/s Performance Trading & Investment, who after depositing the cash in the bank account had issued cheques in favour of the assessee company which means that the cash deposited in the bank account of those concerns really belongs to the assessee. This fact is proved by deposit of cash in equivalent amount in the bank accounts of those two concerns preceding the issue of cheques in favour of the assessee. The appellant failed to rebut this allegation. The appellant also failed to produce the Directors of those concerns before the Assessing Officer. In other words, the appellant also failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions in the light of the fact that those concerns are alleged to be indulged in providing book entires. It is settled proposition of law that just because credits were accepted by account payee cheques and confirmation letters were filed, the transactions cannot be called sacrosanct. In our considered view, the assessee had failed to discharge his onus that was lying upon it in proving the credits under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and therefore, we hereby confirm the addition of ₹ 4 lakhs. Addition under Section 2(22)(e) - Held that:- It is settled proposition of law that the transactions which are undertaken during the course of normal business activity shall not come within the purview of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this regard the reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj Kumar, [2009 (5) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In the light of the above decision, we hereby delete the addition of ₹ 27 lakhs on account of deemed dividend.
|