AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is null and void. 2. That the reasons recorded before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act are not bonafide and not proper. Hence, the assessment made on such invalid reasons should be quashed. 3. That the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income tax Act dated 07.12.2018 is bad in law and is against the provisions of the Income tax Act. Thus, the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 must be annulled and be treated as invalid assessment. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer as cash credit u/s 68 of the Income tax Act of Rs. 50,00,000/- without appreciat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....59/-. 5. During the year, the assessee has received unsecured loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- from one company namely M/s RKG Finvest Pvt. Ltd. The revenue alleged that as per the information received from the Investigation Wing that this company has been floated by the entry operators and is a dummy company involved in providing accommodation entry in the garb of ostensible business transactions though infact not conducting any business operations and as such the amounts received from M/s RKG Finvest Pvt. Ltd. are to be treated as bogus and taxable u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has issued notice u/s 133(6) to the lender company and sent Inspector for verification of the premises of the lender company. While the lender c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ady reference, the relevant part of the assessment order on this issue is reproduced as under: "To cross examine the genuineness and credit worthy of the transaction of the party, notice u/s 133(6) was send to M/s RKG Finvest on 27.11.2018 on the address i.e. 22, Rajendra Park, New Dehi-110060 as mentioned in Company Master Data as well as provided by the assessee company vide letter dated 12.11.2018 though Inspector of this Ward. Report of the Inspector is reproduced as below: INSPECTOR'S REPORT: "Report in the case of M/s RKG Finvest Ltd., address- 22, Rajindra Park, New Delhi -110060. As directed, I enquired the whereabouts of M /s RKG Finvest Ltd located at 22, Rajindra Park, New Delhi 110060 on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, I held it to be the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits within meaning of section u/s 68 of the Income tax Act and added to the income of the assessee." 10. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the issue are as under: Date of Search /Survey in the case of S.K. Jain Group 14.09.2010 & 20.11.2010 Date of Receipt of Amount 23.02.2011 Date of Repayment 31.01.2012 Whether the information could be attributed to the seized/impounded material No Whether in such case, reopening can be based on the impounded material No Whether the information could be attributed to the post-search investigation Yes - STR based Whether M/s RKG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. CIT (A) after going through the facts held that despite repeated opportunities, no efforts was made to discharge the onus either through documents or by producing the persons. The ld. CIT (A) held that the assessee has not discharged his onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction or the creditworthiness of the lender. 12. We have examined each allegation of the revenue with regard to the material on record. The reasons u/s 148 started with the allegation that Rs. 4.83 Crs. has been received by the assessee doesn't commensurate with the business activity of the assessee company and it was the assessee's own income taken under the guise of unsecured loans from entry provider in view of cash. The AO has not brought anythin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 209 lacs on which the depreciation of Rs. 21.97 lacs has been allowed. The bank balance to Rs. 3.2 Crs. and the cash balance of Rs. 24.31 lacs and the salary payments of Rs. 14.7 lacs as on 31.03.2011, the date of incorporation being 20.11.1995 goes against the allegation of the AO that the assessee company is a dummy company. With regard to the reasons given by the ld. CIT (A) that the assessee has not made any effort to discharge the onus, we find that the assessee has submitted all the documents to discharge the primary onus along with details of repayment of the loan. Having received all the documents, the revenue failed to bring anything on record either by the way of statements recorded or by enquiries conducted or by any othe....