TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls)-20, Mumbai [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2009-10. The appeal by the assessee is against additions of unexplained cash credit upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal by the Revenue is against deletion of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for accepting loan otherwise then an account payee cheque. Being connected issues, both these appeals are heard together and dispose off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that despite notifying, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any adjournment was filed. In the facts and circumstances, we were of the opinion that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals, and therefore same were heard ex-p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is without jurisdiction. 3. The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00.00.000/- considering loan taken from nongenuine company under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3.1 That the learned CIT(A) while upholding the addition made u/s 68 of the Act has completely failed to comprehend that the aforesaid sum represents an amount purportedly received as Business advances from M/s K.PH. Metals Pvt. Ltd. by account payee cheques and is duly reflected in the books of account of the appellant, and hence the provisions of section 68 of the Act has no application. 3.2 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that appellant has received the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 29/02/2016, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by way of issue notice under section 148 of the Act. As per the information the assessee had received a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from M/s KPH Metals, which was founded to be paper company in the enquiry conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department at Vadodara. The Assessing Officer commenced reassessment proceeding and after considering the submission of the assessee made addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in terms of section 68 of the Act, holding that the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding the credit appearing its books of accounts from M/s KPH metals. The contention of the assessee that the cheque received from the said party was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted. Without prejudice to the above, I find that in this case the AO received information that the appellant had made a false claim of having received a loan. A false claim made amounts to failure to make full and true disclosure. Therefore, I hold that the AO was justified in reopening the assessment even though more than 4 years had passed from the end of the relevant assessment year and an order under section 143(3) of the Act had been passed. Therefore, grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2 are dismissed". 6. We find that, the information was received from the Assessing Officer in another case, wherein during the course of the search it was found that said person was engaged in providing accommodation entries and the assessee before us also r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observing as under: "5.1 I find that the Department's stands in the impunged order and in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in the appellant's case are conflicting. In the assessment order, the AO has held that the appellant's claim of taking a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was bogus. In other words, the AO held that no such loan was taken by the appellant. But in the order u/s. 271D the Addl. CIT has held that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- by a mode other than account payee cheque or draft. By this office letter dated 06.03.2019. the Additional CIT, Range-12(2), Mumbai was requested to clarify whether or not the appellant's claim that it had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from M/s. KPH Metals Pu....