TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding reopening of assessment by the Ld. AO on reivies of case records. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment in absence of valid sanction as required under Section 151 of the Act was not given. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld. AO to the extent of Rs. 4,75,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act ignoring vital evidence on records." 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground:- "(1) The assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad and illegal as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sum so credited may be charged to income tax. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee though furnished confirmations, bank statements and copy of returns of all the parties from which it had obtained unsecured loans to prove the genuineness of the transactions, with respect to Shukan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Shukan Finance & Investment, assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions. Thus, the claim of the assessee that it has loan balance of Rs. 6,10,00,000/- (Rs.1,35,00,000 + Rs. 4,75,00,000) as on 31.03.2012 of new loans and advances obtained from two Sukan Group of entities were not verifiable. Thus, the Assessing Officer, after issuing notice under Section 142(1) dated 10.11.2017 and taking into accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation is required and in fact reassessment is not review and, therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court will not be applicable in the present case in the facts and circumstances which was distinguishable from the present assessee to that of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the contention of the Ld. AR that no order under Section 127 of the Act was passed/communicated for transfer of jurisdiction, but the same is there mentioned in the Assessment Order which categorically does not require any communication to the assessee as it is an internal transfer for the administrative purpose of the Assessing Officer and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward No.16(2) vs. TechSpan India (P.) Ltd [2018] 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) 5. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Siddhi Developers and Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle No.3(3) [2021] 129 taxmann.com 117 (Gujarat) 6. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 26 taxmann.com 51 (Guj.) 7. Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 354 ITR 211 (Guj) 8. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2013] 33....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AR submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 4,75,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act was passed ignoring the evidences on record. The Ld. AR has given details as follows :- Particulars Amount Unsecured loan received from Shukan Finance and Investment 3,90,00,000/- Due to mistake amount received from Shukan Developers Private Limited is wrongly credited in the account of Shukan Finance and Investment 85,00,000/- TOTAL 4,75,00,000/- "Copy of account of Shukan Finance and Investment from the books of assessee company is annexed at page nos. 69-70 of Paper-book-1 On going through the above account your honour would notice that the loan taken from M/s. Shukan Finan....