9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [hereinafter in short "Ld.CIT(A)"] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in the case of Mangal Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., in ITA.No. 567/Mum/2021 for the A.Y. 2013-14 as the lead case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s.132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain (for short "PKJ") on 01.10.2013. During the course of search, companies belonging to Mangal Group were also covered, assessee is related to Mangal Group of Companies, the cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year and in the subsequent assessment year. Assessing Officer rejected the submissions filed by the assessee by relying on the findings made during search proceedings in the case of PKJ and statements recorded thereon and proceeded to treating the unsecured loans as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him, Ld.CIT(A) after considering the detailed submissions and relying in the case of DCIT v. Smt Meghraj Sohanlal Jain in ITA.No. 4703/Mum/2017 dated 28.08.2019 allowed the ground raised by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - "1. Whether on the facts and circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of the creditors is not sufficient enough to discharge the onus cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when there are sufficient evidences of accommodation entry. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that presence of cash deposits in bank accounts of creditors before the loan transaction is not sine qua non in the process of providing accommodation entries as cash deposits are usually layered through multiple intermediate entities. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the La. CIT(A) erred in not upholding the additions made by the AO in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record various findings unearthed by the investigation wing. 8. Further, he submitted that PKJ has accepted that he is giving accommodation entries to various parties. Further, he brought to our notice Page No. 5 of the Ld.CIT(A) order wherein he has discussed various issues involved in this appeal and also brought to our notice Ld.CIT(A) finding at Page No. 28 of the order wherein Ld.CIT(A) has discussed various issues in his finding that there is no immediate cash deposits and the onus is shifted to the Assessing Officer once the assessee fulfills and establishes the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not discussed any financial data but merely gave his finding. He opposed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er it is repaid or not. 11. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the search and seizure operation u/s. 132(1) was conducted in Mangal Group of cases on 01.10.2013 it is relevant to note that Mangal group is owned by Shri Mangal jain and Shri Ajit Jain and family members and they hold major shares and directorship in companies of Mangal group. Assessee is also part of Mangal group which is owned by Shri Mangal Jain and others. In the case of Mangal group, Assessing Officer observed that assessee made additions related to transactions with PKJ group by way unsecured loans/ share application money/bogus purchases. We observed that in the instant case also assessee made similar additions which is rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assesse introduced his own money. Moreover, it also came into notice that Shri Praveen Kumar Jain was also director of one company M/s Mangal jewels Pvt Ltd who also mortgaged his own residential flat against the bank loan availed by M/s Mangal Jewels Pvt Ltd. This fact was also admitted by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain in his statement recorded on 01.10.2013 u/s 132(4) of the Act in the question no. 34 which specify all these contents. The appellant was also guarantor of the company in which shri Praveen kumar jain was the director namely M/s Nakshtra Business Pvt Ltd which showned that both were in business relationship. Moreover, we found that the identical issue has been decided by the Honble ITAT in which the sole statement of Shri Praveen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
