TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 912
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that error noted by the ld.Pr.CIT in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee related to non-verification of genuineness of unsecured loans taken by the assessee from two persons viz. Miss Kalpana S. Shah and Monali H. Shah. He contended that the ld.Pr.CIT had noted certain anomalies in the details furnished by the assessee of the said transactions in the assessment records, and therefore, had found the assessment order to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue leading to initiation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act. He contended that during revisionary proceedings, the assessee had clarified the anomalies and the ld.Pr.CIT had accepted the said fact also, but thereafter he still held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for non-verification of the details filed by the assessee, and also since credit-worthiness of the said two lenders had not been established bythe assessee. He contended that the facts of the transaction reveale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : On 24.06.2015 Rs.35,20,000/- 7. In the absence of the aforementioned transactions being found in the bank account of Monali Shah, ld.Pr.CITnoticed that the genuineness of the transaction was not established, and the assessment order accordingly was found to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the ld.counsel for the assessee, the impugned unsecured loan transactions of the assessee from Kalpana Shah and Monali Shah was found to be ingenuine and unverified by the AO noting certain transactions relating to the same not reflected in their respective bank accounts, and also on account of credit-worthiness of Kalpana Shah not being established by way of income-tax return filed for the year. 8. A perusal of the order of the ld.Pr.CIT, however, reveals that the assessee had submitted bank accounts of both these persons and on going through the same, we find that, in the case of Kalpana Shah anomalies with respect to transaction of Rs.22.00 lakhs being the payment made by the assessee to her not being reflected in her bank account as noted by the ld.Pr.CIT, was noted by the Ld.PCIT himself to be an incorrect observation. At para-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the copy of the bank statement of Monali Shah submitted to the ld.Pr.CIT and copy of which placed before us in PB 59-63 filed on 02.08.2022, pointing out that the remaining transactions were clearly reflected in the name of the assessee in the respective dates in the said bank account of Monali Shah. He contended that the Ld.PCIT had completely ignored these transactions. 12. Now coming to two transactions, which the ld.Pr.CIT noted from the bank statement of Monali Shah with respect to which he had noted narrations in the bank statements did not make it clear that the amounts was transferred to the assessee and the assessee has not informed as to how narration scould be co-related with any of its bank statements, findings of the ld.Pr.CIT in this regard at para-5.1 is as under: 5.1 ...... However, on perusal of aforesaid bank account statement, it is observed that on 15.05.2015 and 29.05.2015, amounts of Rs. 5,00,028/- and Rs.10,00,056/- were transferred with narration of entry as " TO TRF TRF TO 85845001829". The name of assessee or its proprietary concern (Ms/ Shreeji Steel Traders) does not appear against the relevant entries in the bank statement which could establish that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dering records before him had arrived at a finding that the assessee had been unable to explain the source of credits with respect to Rs.5,00,026/- and Rs.10,00,056/-. 15. The ld.DR was unable to controvert this factually contention of the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the error by the ld.Pr.CIT with respect to the transaction of Rs.5,00,026/- and Rs.10,00,056/-, we hold, is incorrect. The assessee has clearly revealed these amounts coming into the bank account of the assessee from the account of Monali Shah. The ld.Pr.CIT has made his finding solely on the basis of the bank account of Monali Shah and without looking and considering records before him, which included bank account of the assessee also. A mere comparison of bank account of Monali Shah and the bank account of the assessee could have clearly revealed to the ld.Pr.CIT that the funds transferred from Monali Shah had come to the bank account of the assessee only. Therefore, finding of the error by the ld.CIT(A) with respect to the impugned transactions, relating to Monali Shah, is also, we hold, incorrect. Thus, it is evident that anomaly with respect to the unsecured loans taken by the assessee from Monali Shah a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Kalpana Shah not being established, we have noted from the order of the ld.Pr.CIT himself that during the impugned year, the assessee had received Rs.31,18,882/- from her and paid back Rs.29,61,194/- to her. Thus, approximately Rs.2 lakhs has been received by the assessee from her. Copy of her ledger account filed before us which was part of the record before the AO also on page no.36. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out there from that entire transaction in the name of Kalapana Shah was with respect to transfer of money to her by the assessee, and received back the same from her subsequently only; that thereafter the balance was outstanding related to the opening balance in her account of Rs.22,07,140/- and balance of Rs.1,50,000/- received back from her, amounting in all to outstanding balance of Rs.23,64,828/-. Copy of her ledger account placed before us reproduced at page no.36 hereunder for clarity: 18. He has stated, therefore, that source of amounts received from her was obviously amounts transferred to her by the assessee. He pointed out that even the ld.Pr.CIT had accepted and admitted to this fact that the amounts were transferred to Kalpana Shah, and also rec....