TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ening of Assessment u/s. 147 a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year of original assessment that was passed u/s. 143(3) u/s. 147 of the Act that was passed after verifying the loans. In the absence of failure on part of the appellant to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for its assessment, the reopening of assessment is bad in law and needs to be quashed. b) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act which was reopened merely on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing and without independent application of mind by the learned Assessing Officer. c) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act without appreciating that the learned Assessing Officer had disposed off the objections in general and without properly meeting the objections raised. 2. Addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s. 68 on account of unexplained cash credit a) Without prejudice to the above and without admit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansactions. 3.2 The assessee raised objections to reopening of the assessment, however, the same were rejected and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued in due course requiring assessee to prove the genuineness of loan transactions. However, the assessee failed to reply to the show cause notices. A summon u/s 131 was issued to the principal officers of both these entities. However, the summons were not accepted which were confronted to the director o the assessee. The assessee failed to produce the directors of the two entities and accordingly, it was opined that the assessee failed to establish the identity and genuineness of both the entities. Since the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of establishing the genuineness of loan transactions, the amount of Rs. 100 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 while framing assessment on 29/12/2017. 3.3 However, this order has subsequently been rectified u/s 154 on 12/02/2018 in view of the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12, Shri Anil Chokhani (director of both the entities) appeared before Ld. AO and his statement was recorded on oath u/s 131. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther, it is clear seen from the para no. 4 of the assessment order that both the companies were involved in LTCG scam as held in-depth Investigation undertaken by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate of the Income Tax Department. As per the Investigation report of the Kolkata Directorate, both the lenders had provided exit to the beneficiary of Long Term Capital Gain and booked Short term Capital Loss in their books and unaccounted cash was handle over to them in lies of cheques of equal amount from them ostensible for purchase of such shares at artificially inflated market price. v. The mere submission of the confirmation or bank transaction copy of/from the Lender was not sufficient to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act. 6.2.22 In view of above facts and that no further evidences or arguments have been put forth by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings. It is held that no interference is called for in the decision of assessing officer as the appellant has failed to discharge the onus required under Section 68 of the Act and the Assessing Officer was justified in added the amounts to the appellant's income of Rs. 50,00,000/-.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted. Upon perusal of paper-book as placed before us, it could be gathered that the assessee has duly filed ledger account of the party along with name, address, PAN of the lender, details of brokers who arranged loan, securities offered, term sheet / sanction letter, Board Resolution, Inter-corporate deposit receipt, pledge agreement and various other similar documents in support of the genuineness of the loan transaction. The loan was fully paid on 21/05/2010 along with interest. The transactions were confirmed by M/s Gateway Leasing Private Limited in response to notice u/s 133(6). Thus, the assessee had duly discharged the onus of proving the identity of the lender, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the loan transaction. This being so, the impugned additions are not sustainable in law. By deleting the same, we allow ground no.2 of the appeal. The appeal stand partly allowed. Assessee's Appeal, ITA No.7425/Mum/2019, AY 2011-12 7. The only ground urged in the appeal is interest disallowance of Rs. 1.21 Lacs as paid by the assessee to M/s Gateway Leasing Private Limited. An assessment for the year was similarly framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 12/02/2018. Since th....