Tribunal Upholds Assessment Reopening Validity, Deletes Rs. 20,74,795 Additions Due to Lack of Inquiry and Improper Book Rejection.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. It upheld the validity of the assessment reopening under Section 148, finding the AO had sufficient grounds. However, it deleted the additions of Rs. 15,00,000 as a bogus unsecured loan, Rs. 44,795 as interest, Rs. 30,000 as assumed expenditure, and Rs. 5,00,000 as ad-hoc disallowance, citing lack of substantial inquiry and improper rejection of books.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of Rs. 15,00,000 as bogus unsecured loan and Rs. 44,795 as interest.
3. Addition of Rs. 30,000 as expenditure assumed to have been incurred for obtaining the loan.
4. Ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000 against cost of purchases and expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Reopening of the Assessment under Section 148:
The assessee contested the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO), arguing it was based solely on information from the Investigation Department. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, stating the AO had specific information that income had escaped assessment and followed due procedure. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground of appeal but found that the AO had rightly issued notice under section 148. The AO had reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 15,00,000 had escaped assessment based on information from the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) regarding accommodation entries provided by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd., emphasizing that at the stage of issuing notice, the AO only needed a prima facie reason to believe, not conclusive proof. Thus, the reopening was deemed valid and the additional ground was dismissed.

2. Addition of Rs. 15,00,000 as Bogus Unsecured Loan and Rs. 44,795 as Interest:
The AO added Rs. 15,00,000 as a bogus unsecured loan from M/s Javda India Impex Ltd., and Rs. 44,795 as interest, stating the lender did not respond to a notice under section 133(6). The CIT(A) upheld this, citing the lender's failure to provide confirmation and the lack of evidence of the loan's repayment. The assessee provided loan confirmation, ledger accounts, and bank statements, but the AO did not conduct further verification. The Tribunal found the AO's addition based on conjecture and surmises, not on substantial inquiry. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Orchid Industries Ltd., the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 and Rs. 44,795 was deleted, and the first ground of appeal was allowed.

3. Addition of Rs. 30,000 as Expenditure Assumed to Have Been Incurred for Obtaining the Loan:
Given the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 as a bogus unsecured loan, the related addition of Rs. 30,000 as expenditure assumed to have been incurred for obtaining the loan was deemed consequential. The Tribunal allowed this ground of appeal, deleting the Rs. 30,000 addition.

4. Ad-hoc Disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000 Against Cost of Purchases and Expenses:
The AO made an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000 due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting documents for purchases and expenses. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not reject the assessee's books of accounts before making the ad-hoc disallowance. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT v. R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd., the Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances without rejecting the books of accounts are not sustainable. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 was deleted, and the third ground of appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal validating the reopening of the assessment but deleting the additions related to the bogus unsecured loan, the related interest, the assumed expenditure for obtaining the loan, and the ad-hoc disallowance against purchases and expenses. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 23/11/2020.

---