TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in making addition of Rs. 41,49,500/- to the returned income in terms of section 68 of the Act not being satisfied with the genuineness of credit? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,49,500/- holding that the appellant had discharged initial onus to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and since the AO had not faulted the confirmations filed before him, the entire addition was merely based on suspicion regarding Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (BMPL) and Satya Securities Ltd. (SSL), which does not stand? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,49,500/- without appreciating that specific information was received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai stating that as per specific information received from the CBI, ACB, Mumbai, the assessee was involved in entering into bogus transaction with M/s Basant Marketing Private Limited and Satya Securities Ltd ? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing satisfied with the replies/submissions and documents received during the assessment proceedings, concluded that the Assessee has failed to discharge onus under Section 68 of the Act and therefore made an addition of INR 41,49,500/- (INR 13,91,000/- + INR 27,58,500/-) under Section 68 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, dated 29.01.2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act are as under: "6.1 Loans though obtained from banking channels need not necessarily the genuine in nature. The exact purport of such loans, though obtained through authorised channels cannot be determined to be genuine on the fact of it. The assessee has merely stated that it had obtained unsecured loans from time to time and repaid the same. Despite requesting the assessee, it has chosen not to explain the purpose for which the loans were accepted. The nature and purpose of loan from BMPL and SSL, both Dalmia Group concerns, is hence not known neither sought to be clarified by the assessee despite allowing sufficient time. It is also pertinent to mention that similar assessment proceedings are undertaken in the case of the assessee fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the brought forward losses after verification. The relevant extract of the order, dated 14.02.2019, passed by CIT(A) read as under: "3.1.3 Since, the facts and circumstances are the same for this assessment year, except for the amount involved and the addition in instant case is also w.r.t BMPL, following the decision of Hon‟ble ITAT, Mumbai for assessment year 2008-09 in the case of Harsh Dalmia for the same Creditor and that of the CIT(A)-20, Kolkata again in the case of same creditor as reproduced above, the addition made u/s 68 in respect of unexplained/unapproved credit in the name of M/s BMPL, is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal in respect of BMPL is allowed. 3.1.4 In respect of cash credit of Rs. 27,58,000/- of M/s Satya Securities Ltd, I find that similar additions were made of "unproved" credits by the assessing officer in case of M/s Venktesh Securities Ltd i.e. the sister concerns of this assessee, in earlier years and have been considered and decided in favour of assessee by my Ld. Predecessor in appellant's appeals against order u/s 143(3) for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10. 3.1.5 Since the facts and circumstances are the same for this assessment year,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. Authorized Representative, without prejudice to the aforesaid, further submitted that, in any case, the additions made under Section 68 of the Act were not sustainable in the hands of the Assessee as Assessing Officer had added the opening balance of the outstanding loan/liability as on 01.04.2004. The outstanding loan/liability of INR.13,91,000/- pertaining to BMPL and INR.27,58,000/- pertaining to SSL were not credits made during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2005-06 but pertained to the earlier assessment years, and therefore, could not have been brought to tax during relevant Assessment Year 2005-06 under Section 68 of the Act. 9. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. As contended by Revenue, placing reliance on the information received that BMPL and SSL were engaged in bogus transactions order, dated 19.03.2015, was passed under Section 263 of the Act setting aside the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. In the proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 263, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based upon the information and material gathered by the Assessi....