TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer is justified in reopening the assessment. CIT(A) has also rejected the contention of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee in making full and true disclosure, as false claim was made by the assessee regarding the loan. In absence of any rebuttal by the assessee before us, we concur with the finding of the CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee challenging the legality of the reassessment are accordingly dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - We find that assessee failed to discharge its onus under section 68 of the Act and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition. We do not find any error in the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal by the Revenue is against deletion of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for accepting loan otherwise then an account payee cheque. Being connected issues, both these appeals are heard together and dispose off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that despite notifying, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any adjournment was filed. In the facts and circumstances, we were of the opinion that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals, and therefore same were heard ex-parte, qua the assessee after hearing arguments of the Ld. Department Representative and on perusal of the record. 3. First, we take up the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken from nongenuine company under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3.1 That the learned CIT(A) while upholding the addition made u/s 68 of the Act has completely failed to comprehend that the aforesaid sum represents an amount purportedly received as Business advances from M/s K.PH. Metals Pvt. Ltd. by account payee cheques and is duly reflected in the books of account of the appellant, and hence the provisions of section 68 of the Act has no application. 3.2 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that appellant has received the aforesaid Business advances from M/s K.PH. Metals Pvt. Ltd by receiving account payee cheque, and such a transaction was duly reflected in its books, however since the KPH could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377;1,00,00,000/- from M/s KPH Metals, which was founded to be paper company in the enquiry conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department at Vadodara. The Assessing Officer commenced reassessment proceeding and after considering the submission of the assessee made addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in terms of section 68 of the Act, holding that the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding the credit appearing its books of accounts from M/s KPH metals. The contention of the assessee that the cheque received from the said party was not deposited, was found to be unsatisfactory by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Ld. Assessing Officer completed reassessment on 15/12/2016 after making addition for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts to failure to make full and true disclosure. Therefore, I hold that the AO was justified in reopening the assessment even though more than 4 years had passed from the end of the relevant assessment year and an order under section 143(3) of the Act had been passed. Therefore, grounds of appeal No. 1 2 are dismissed . 6. We find that, the information was received from the Assessing Officer in another case, wherein during the course of the search it was found that said person was engaged in providing accommodation entries and the assessee before us also received loan from one of such party. In our opinion, the information was received from reliable sources and there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could make a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the assessment order, the AO has held that the appellant's claim of taking a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was bogus. In other words, the AO held that no such loan was taken by the appellant. But in the order u/s. 271D the Addl. CIT has held that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- by a mode other than account payee cheque or draft. By this office letter dated 06.03.2019. the Additional CIT, Range-12(2), Mumbai was requested to clarify whether or not the appellant's claim that it had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from M/s. KPH Metals Put. Ltd. had been accepted by the department. It was pointed out that in case the loan transaction has been accepted, the addition made u/s.68 in the assessment order will be deleted; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
