TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. These are two appeals by the Revenue. ITA No.86 of 2018 is directed against an order dated 28th February, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in IT (SS) A No.02/CTK/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. ITA No.85 of 2018 by the Revenue is directed against an order dated 22nd March, 2018 passed by the ITAT in IT (SS) A No.03/CTK/2018 for the AY 2013-14. Since the appeals are directed against the orders of the ITAT allowing the appeals of the same Assessee but for different AYs and the factual backgrounds are similar, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In both appeals, the common questions sought to be urged by the Revenue are whether the ITAT was justified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing served on the Assessee. 6. For AY 2012-13 the assessment was completed by the AO on 28th December, 2016 determining the total income as Rs.6.92 crores and on the same date, a separate assessment order was passed for AY 2013-14 determining the total income as Rs.3.06 crores. The appeals filed by the Assessee against the respective assessment orders were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] by order dated 13th November, 2017. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred further appeals to the ITAT which have been allowed by the respective impugned orders for the two AYs. 7. The ITAT noted that for both AYs in question, the Assessee claimed to have received a corresponding loan amount from UAPL i.e. Rs.6.92 cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was produced and the Assessee had therefore discharged the initial onus of showing the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor. The loan amount of Rs.3.06 crores had been repaid in the financial year 2014-15. The further contention was that since the assessment proceedings had commenced in August, 2015 the Assessee had no control or influence over the Directors of UAPL to compel them to appear before the AO. On the other hand, the AO could have required them to appear before him for examination but he did not exercise the power available with him under the Act for that purpose. Therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn against the Assessee. 11. As regards AY 2012-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected." 13. This Court has in its decisions in Smt. Jami Nirmala v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573 (Ori) and Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak v. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Ori) relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del) where inter alia it was observed as under: "...(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the Assessing Officer which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the asses....