9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order even dated 07.12.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 on identically worded grounds except the difference in figures inter alia that:- "1.1 Ground of Appeal That on facts and in law the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming an addition to total income of Rs. 16,38,797/- of interest paid on loan. Our Submission 1. Allow the deduction of interest paid of Rs. 16,38,797/- since Commissioner Appeal erred in a. Ignoring relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant - Here Commissioner Appeal in Order mentioned that the Assessee has not provided any evidences in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y onus of providing complete details in respect of loan transactions. b. In this regard, the Learned Assessing Officer failed to consider the fact that the information/view taken while passing the order is general in nature with no evidentiary value. c. The Learned Assessing Officer failed to consider the fact that the Appellant had furnished the Loan Confirmations, ITR and Bank Statements of Loan Parties. d. Also, the Learned Assessing Officer failed to consider the fact that the Appellant had actually taken loan from the above said parties for its smooth running of the business and the said transaction was carried out through proper banking channel. e. Again, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in Initiating Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntions raised by the assessee, AO proceeded to hold that the alleged loan from M/s. Rajat Diamond Exim P. Ltd. and M/s. Frontline Diamond P. Ltd. of Rs. 2,57,003/- and Rs. 13,81,794/- respectively was non genuine/accommodative in nature and thereby made addition of Rs. 1638797/- (Rs. 2,57,003 + Rs. 13,81,794) and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal. 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire addition is based on the information collected during the search and seizure operation carried out in case of Gautam Jain & Group the entire additional evidence now sought to be brought on record by the assessee along with retraction affidavit of Shri Dharmendar Kumar Bhave, lenders from whom the assessee claimed to have availed of the loan, is required to be examined to substantiate the cause of justice. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte without having any reply of the assessee on record. To decide the issue once for all assessee must be provided with an opportunity of being heard. So we hereby allow the additional evidence sought to be led by the assessee and case is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
