TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on nor the quantum shall determine the exercise of jurisdiction by the AO. Thus, going through the entire factum of the case, we hold that the addition made by the AO on account of unsecured loan ould not pass the factual and judicial proprietary. Hence, the addition made by the AO is directed to be deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 7157/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2020 - Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Assessee by : Sh. M. R. Sahu, CA Revenue by : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi dated 08.07.2019. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That the initiation of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is illegal and thus the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is null and void. 2. That the reasons recorded before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act are not bonafide and not proper. Hence, the assessment made on such invalid reasons should be quashed. 3. That the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re to be treated as bogus and taxable u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has issued notice u/s 133(6) to the lender company and sent Inspector for verification of the premises of the lender company. While the lender company sent reply to the AO by E-mail, the Inspector reported that the lender company was at tenant for the period from April 2014 to March 2016 at the said premises. Based on the report of the Inspector, the AO held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and added the amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- received u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee went before the ld. CIT (A) who confirmed the addition made by the AO on the grounds that the assessee has not discharged the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. 7. Before us, it was argued that the assessee has submitted all the relevant details to the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR has taken as to the reply dated 12.11.2018 wherein the details of Audit Report, Balance Sheet, Confirmations, ledger, Bank Statement of the lender company along with the master data as per MCA portal has been submitted. The said loan has been repaid in the Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 50,00,000/- credited in the books of account of the assessee since the primary onus lies upon the assessee company to prove that the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee company has failed to prove the genuineness within the meaning of section 68 of the Income tax Act for the year under consideration. Therefore, I held it to be the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits within meaning of section u/s 68 of the Income tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. 10. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the issue are as under: Date of Search /Survey in the case of S.K. Jain Group 14.09.2010 20.11.2010 Date of Receipt of Amount 23.02.2011 Date of Repayment 31.01.2012 Whether the information could be attributed to the seized/impounded material No Whether in such case, reopening can be based on the impounded material No Whether the information could be attributed to the post-search investigation Yes STR based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s u/s 148 started with the allegation that ₹ 4.83 Crs. has been received by the assessee doesn t commensurate with the business activity of the assessee company and it was the assessee s own income taken under the guise of unsecured loans from entry provider in view of cash. The AO has not brought anything on record to prove or to primarily support the allegation either in the form of any diary entry or statement. The material impounded and the evidences gathered on or before 20.11.2010 have been utilized to suspect the loan received on 23.01.2011 by the assessee and issued notice u/s 148 with the allegation that the said loan received is primarily bogus in nature. The dependency of the AO on the material prior to the lending of the loan in the absence of any other corroborated evidences cannot be held to be justifiable. The AO s contention that the Inspector could not find the lender company at the premises is wrong on facts as the Inspector report says that the company was in existence at the premises from April 2014 to March 2016. In that case, it is incumbent upon the AO to enquire about the new address of the company from the assessee which was not done. Further, the len ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
