TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings for examination of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions." 3. In its Cross Objection the assessee has raised the following grounds: "that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that, in the absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search related to concerned assessment year 2009-10, the proceedings initiated u/s 153A and order of assessment passed by the AO were without jurisdiction and the same were bad in law and consequently all the additions made by the AO were liable to be set aside." 4. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of transformers and allied products. It is part of 'Guptasons Group' of Bhopal. The assessee company was subject to search u/s 132 of the Act along with other group concern of Gupta sons, carried out on 28.10.2010. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A of the Act dated 16.01.2012 was duly served upon the assessee. In response to which on 03.02.2012 the assessee filed the income tax return declaring income of Rs. 7,97,27,010/-. Same income was disclosed in the revis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y. 2009-10 cannot be categorized under the completed assessment and therefore, the judgment referred and relied by the Ld. counsel for the assessee in support of non-abated assessment orders cannot stand for. In our view since the assessee has himself revised the return after the date of search, assessment year 2009-10 cannot be categorized under the completed assessment. Therefore, Ld. AO was well within his powers and jurisdiction u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act to conduct assessment proceedings along with post search inquiry irrespective of the fact that no incriminating material was found for A.Y.2009-10. We accordingly, dismiss the assessee's ground raised in Cross Objection. 10. As regards the grounds raised by the revenue challenging the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-. Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. AO. 11. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the S.K. Bothra & sons vs. ITO 347 ITR 347 (Cal) & another judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Crystal Net Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Cal). 12. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arties were not genuine. 7. I have verified the documents submitted by the appellant during the assessment proceedings and notice several factors relevant to the issue as below: i. Unsecured loan of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- on account of cash credits from M/s Nikunj Alloy and Steel Pvt. Ltd. was received in two installments by cheque. Rs. 75,00,000/- was received on 25.04.2008 and Rs. 1,10,00 000/- was received on 02.05.2008. ii. Interest amounting to Rs. 15,36,534/- on the unsecured loan of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- taken from /is Nikunj Alloy and Steel Pvt. Ltd. was credited and deduction of TDS of Rs. 3,48,179/- was made. iii. Interest amounting to Rs. 6,95,801/- on the unsecured loan of Rs. 78,00,000/- taken from M/s Rudra Steel and Alloys/- was credited and deduction of TDS of Rs. 1,57,668/- was made. iv. It is noticed that the unsecured loan of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- to M/s Nikunj Alloy and Steel Pvt. Ltd. was finally returned on 08.04.2010 and on 15.04.2010 for the amounts of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- and Rs. 60,00,000/- respectively by way of cheque no. 683859 and 683883/RTGS. v. It is noticed that the unsecured loan of Rs. 78,00,000/- to /is Rudra Steel and Alloysl- was finally returned o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he A.O is contradictory and makes the addition unsustainable. 11. Fourthly, it has also been noticed that all the loans which were added by the A.O rood repaid in April 2010. The A.O passed the assessment order in appeal in March - 013. The A.O should have taken cognizance of the fact that the loan suspected by him as bogus cash credit stood repaid. The fact that loan was repaid by cheque/RTGS strengthens the correctness of the appellants claim. 12. As far as loan of Rs. 60,00,000/. from M/s Rudra Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the same Was received during the year. The particulars for this loan taken by the appellant shows that the loan was actually received on 07.04.2008. Addition on account of M/s. Rudra Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. has therefore been erroneously made in the A.Y. 2008-09 for Rs. 60,00,000/- instead of A.Y. 2009-10. This amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- is being dealt with here. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts of the matter, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- plus Rs. 60,00,000/- (made for A.Y. 2008-09 but actually pertains to A.Y. 2009-10) on account of alleged unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act are deleted in view of the fac....