TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration under section 133A of the Act on the premises of M/s SS Enterprises, which is a group concern and sister concern of the assessee. During the course of survey, some incriminating documents were impounded which are basically related to cash transactions by the group concerns. Further assessing officer observed that assessee has taken loans and advances to the extent of Rs. 71,46,910/- from M/s Samir Enterprises. When the assessee was asked to explain why the transaction cannot be treated as bogus, in response, assessee submitted that it is not a fresh loan but this loan was taken in earlier assessment year, this loan was taken by assessee through banking channel and assessee has paid the relevant interest to the party and also this loan was settled in the subsequent assessment year through banking channel only. Further, assessee submitted before assessing officer that he himself initiated the private proceedings by issue of notice u/s 133(6) from the address and PAN details submitted by the assessee, therefore assessing officer cannot initiate proceedings under section 68 of the Act. 4. Assessing officer rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make the add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 observed that assessee has established identity and genuineness of this transaction and assessing officer has not found anything contrary to the submissions made by the assessee and he also observed that protective assessment cannot be independent of substantive assessment. The protective assessment is always successive to the substantive assessment therefore he rejected the findings of the assessing officer and he relied on the various case law to allow the grounds raised by assessee. 8. With regard to disallowance of loan and interest claimed by the assessee, he observed that during assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted loan confirmations along with the relevant details. In his view the identity of the creditors has been established as they are having PAN and they are regularly filing return of income. With regard to genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness is established from the fact that both the acceptance and repayment of loan has been through banking channel. He also observed that in the assessment order, AO did not discuss the merit of submission made by the assessee and casually brushed aside the details filed by the assessee. According to him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions to be merely on the basis that the transactions were through banking channels when mere fact that transactions were carried through banking channels does not make them sacrosanct. 6. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. The appellant craves leave to amend or to alter any ground or add a new which may be necessary. 10. Before us, Ld DR submitted that M/s Samir Enterprises is an entry operator and the transaction with this firm is not genuine and cannot be believed. He brought to our notice para-5.3 of the assessment order and he supported the findings of the assessing officer.Further he brought to our notice para-5.1 of learned CIT(A) and submitted that learned CIT(A) has not appreciated the findings of the assessing officer and he brought to our notice para-5.11 of CIT(A) and submitted that learned CIT(A) agreed that M/s Samir Enterprises is involved in bogus transactions still he separated the purchase transactions and loan transactions as 2 separate transactions. He objected to the findings of the learned CIT(A) to allow the grounds raised by the assessee even t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved that assessing officers has merely relied on the assessment order u/s 143(3) of M/s Samir Enterprises without any corroborative evidence will not make the loan transaction, in question, as accommodation entries in absence of any corroborative evidence and the outcome of assessment order in the case of M/s Samir Enterprises and the conclusions drawn therein cannot be applied ipso facto to all other cases. Further he observed that protective assessment cannot be independent of substantive assessment and protective assessment is always successive to the substantive assessment accordingly relying on the above facts and case law he deleted the addition after considering the overall situation and facts on record and also, in our view, revenue has not brought on record anything new material in support of the findings of assessing officer. From the record, it is clear that the loan was not taken during this year and taken during earlier AY and through banking channel. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the findings of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly ground raised by the revenue are dismissed. 15. With regard to other loans taken by the assessee, we notice from the record that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, which deals with pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: (5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners:- (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing. (b) In case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date for pronouncement. (c ) In a case where no date of pronouncement is given by the Bench, every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the order, and such date shall not ordinarily(emphasis supplied by us now) be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the noticeboard. 8. Quite clearly, "ordinarily" the order on an appeal should be pronounced by the bench within no more than 90 days from the date of concluding the hearing. It is, however, important t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that "In case the limitationhasexpired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, "It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly", and also observed that "arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020". It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus "should be consider....