TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment was framed by the Income-tax Officer, Non-Company Ward-2(5), Coimbatore for the assessment year 2015-16 u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2017. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is delayed by 619 days. This appeal was filed before Tribunal only on 30.12.2021 and as per Form 36, the order of CIT(A) was received on 21.02.2020. The assessee has filed condonation petition stating that the delay was due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government from 25.03.2020. The assessee has also stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the above issue. Accordingly, the PCIT after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the reason that the AO in his records and assessment proceedings has not enquired into the money lending activity of the assessee as well as sale of immovable property and capital account. Therefore, the PCIT directed the AO vide para 8 as under:- "8. The Assessing Officer, is hereby, directed to re-do the assessment afresh after verification of the facts discussed above and also after reconciliation of the figures by the assessee, capital introduction claim, money lending activity and any other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egard, some of the debtors who were claimed as bad and written off during the year were summoned and statement was taken from them. In some of the cases the debtors stated their inability to attend in person and confirmed that they have not returned the loans they have obtained from the assessee as on 31.03.2015." 5.1 The ld.counsel for the assessee in view of the above, stated that the AO has examined the details of investment made during the year as well as the nature of business i.e., of money lending and also summoned the debtors who confirmed the same. Some of the debtors could not attend in person but confirmed in writing that they have not returned the loans they have obtained from the assessee as on 31.03.2015. The ld.counsel for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n if it is presumed that the money lending activity is genuine, no prudent businessman would lend money without receipt of adequate security. v. It is observed that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished documents such as promissory notes received from the borrower against the loan. By examination of promissory notes, it was noticed that most of them were prepared on 249-2014 and it did not contain the Signature of witnesses and the details of mode of Payment, etc, The AO had accepted these documents as evidences without proper examination. Further, some of the debtors, in their sworn statement stated that they could not pay the loan received, despite legal notice received by them, But it is noticed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AT-BANG) vii. It is also noticed that, in the Assessment Order itself the AO had stated that some of the debtors had not attended against the Summons issued but the AO had accepted the confirmation given by them without any further verification. It is evident from the letter issued by the AO to assesse vide his letter dated 04.12.2017. viii. Hence it is clear from the above facts that the assessee received a Capital Gain of Rs. 1.30 Crores and to avoid the legitimate tax, the assessee has concocted a story of a money lending business. The AO without verifying the genuineness of the assessee's money lending business had simply accepted the loss as business loss on account of money lending activities. 7. After hearing....