9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Pune ['AO' hereinafter] for assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 ['AYs' hereinafter]; 2. Since facts & substantive issue involved in both these appeals being identical & common, at the request of rival parties, these are taken up together for the sake of brevity and for a common & consolidated order. 3. Tersely stated common facts arising out of the case records are that; 2.1 Upon the receipt of information from ITO (Inv) vide letter dt. 11/12/201 that the assessee has repaid portion of loan taken by him from 'Yogiraj Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha' ['YNSP' hereinafter] in cash, the case of the assessee for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 were re-opened and in the event of effective failure to prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .9,41,300/- respectively. For the purpose of construction the assessee availed a loan from YNSP & upon disbursement the sum was transferred to his bank account maintained with 'Saraswat Co-Op. Bank' ['SCB' hereinafter], wherefrom he withdrew a cash of Rs.23.75 Lakhs for the purpose. The balance of cash withdrawal intermittently or finally left over after meeting his construction needs were deposited with YNSP towards repayment of loan. Upon the information of such cash repayment the Ld. AO re-opened the assessment to verify nature & source thereof, in the absence of any reply, evidence & in the event of non-cooperation from the assessee, the Ld. AO came to conclude that, cash withdrawal made out of loan availed from YNSP were meant from con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve duly considered in the returns of income previously filed by him, then reopening on the basis of prima facie material cannot be faulted with as it passes through the test of section 147 of the Act. This finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO' [1999, 236 ITR 34 (SC)]. Respectfully following the same, we do not see any cogent reasons in not upholding the re-opening of assessment and in not dismissing the legal ground raised thereagainst. This answers the first ground of the present appeal. 6. Insofar as the meritorious ground is concerned, we note that, besides making bald statements in the impugned orders the Revenue could hardly place any material on record to dismantle the appellant' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
