TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is a complete non-application of mind. The payment of loan by the petitioner could not have been added to the loan amount, which the petitioner claims, was received from unrelated parties - the attempt appears to be to, somehow, take the amount which, according to the AO, escaped assessment, over the threshold limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. The impugned order passed under Section 148A(d), the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the order dated 16.03.2023 cannot be sustained - Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 4601/2023 & CM APPL. 17579-17580/2023 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2023 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU For the Petitioner Through: Mr Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accommodation entry provided by Mr Anand Kumar Jain and Naresh Kumar Jain [hereinafter called Jain brothers ] via certain dummy entities. 9. According to the respondents/revenue, the petitioner/assessee received Rs. 68,50,000/- during the Financial Year (FY) 2014-15. 10. This broad allegation is contained in the notice dated 27.05.2022 served on the petitioner/assessee. 11. The petitioner/assessee, in response thereto, filed a reply dated 03.06.222. In the reply, the petitioner/assessee, inter alia, took the position that during FY 2014-15, it had taken unsecured loans from related and unrelated parties. 11.1 The details with respect to both related and unrelated parties are set forth in the paragraph 8 of the said reply. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - from the paper and dummy companies as stated above, the assessee has repaid loan of Rs.48,50,483/- to the various dummy and paper companies controlled and managed by Sh. Anand Kumar Jain and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain (the Jain Brothers) who are in the business of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. Thus the total transactions is more than Rs. 50,00,000/- and thus notice u/s 148 of the Act was rightly issued to the assessee. 19. According to us, there is a complete non-application of mind. The payment of loan by the petitioner could not have been added to the loan amount, which the petitioner claims, was received from unrelated parties. 20. The attempt appears to be to, somehow, take the amount which, according t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
