TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egistry has notified delay of two days in filing the appeal. The Revenue has filed an application, seeking condonation of delay, which is kept on record. After considering the reason shown for delay in filing the appeal, we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause. Hence, delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No. 5670/Mum/2024 (Appeal by the Revenue) 3. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in stating the order passed u/s 148A(d) by the Jurisdictional Officer (JAO) and the notices issues under section 148 by the JAO given that the Finance Act 2021 introduced provisions for faceles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n course of search and seizure operation carried out u/s. 132 of the Act in case of one Shri Vipul Ranchodbhai Patel and Shri Jayesh Bhai K Patel on 28.09.2020, it was found that M/s. MEC Tech, a proprietary concern of Smt. Neena Kamlesh Shah, though, was not doing any genuine business, but it is maintaining a bank account with HDFC Bank, Ahmadabad. It was further found that on 12.12.2014 and 16.12.2014, M/s. MEC Tech has paid Rs. 55 lacs each to the assessee company. Being of the view that M/s. MEC Tech has no genuine business activity, hence, the transactions involving payment of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- to the assessee is 'non genuine transaction', the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 6. In course of assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted as per the terms of the agreement, M/s. UVI Films Productions Pvt. Ltd. will pay certain amount to the assessee out of marketing and distribution budget for incurring various expenses towards marketing and distribution of movie. The assessee submitted that for meeting such expenses, M/s. UVI Films Productions Pvt. Ltd. paid an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- to the assessee through two demand drafts of Rs. 55 lacs each on 12.12.2014 and 16.12.2014. Thus, it was submitted by the assessee that the amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- was received from M/s. UVI Films Productions Pvt. Ltd. and duly recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee further submitted that it had not received any such amount from M/s. MEC Tech. The A.O. however, did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Relying upon such information, the A.O. had concluded that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- from an entity namely M/s. MEC Tech, a proprietary concern of Smt. Neena Kamlesh Shah. However, it is evident, in course of assessment proceeding itself, the assessee had emphatically denied of having entered into any transaction with M/s. MEC Tech Proprietorship or its proprietor Smt. Neena Kamlesh Shah, either in the assessment year under dispute or in any other assessment year. On the contrary, the assessee submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- was received through two demand drafts of Rs. 55 lacs each from M/s. UVI Films Productions Pvt. Ltd. for marketing and distribution of a film named 'Rahasya', produced by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the paper book corroborates the fact that the amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, comprised of two demand drafts issued by M/s. UVI Films Productions Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the assessee. Relying upon some unsubstantiated information received in course of search conducted in case of some third parties, the A.O. has unilaterally concluded that the amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- was received from M/s. MEC Tech, which has no business transaction. The A.O. has not brought on record any corroborative evidence to substantiate his allegation that the amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, in fact, was received from M/s. MEC Tech. There is nothing on record to suggest that any independent enquiry was taken up with M/s. MEC Tech or its proprietor, to ascertain whether....