TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT (A) erred in not holding so. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is non-est as it does not have DIN on the body of the assessment order and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated are contrary to the provisions of law including the specific provisions of section 147 to section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the assessing officer is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction and CIT (A) erred in not holding so. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of alleged unexplained credit us 68 of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) is beyond the scope of jurisdiction and provisions of section 147/148 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... competent approval thereon. 6. On merits, it is the contention of the assessee that pre-requisites for invocation of s.68 of the Act are sorely lacking in the present case and therefore, the additions made under s. 68 of the Act and consequential, additions under s. 69C towards incidental cost, are wholly untenable in law. 7. We have heard the rival submissions on all points and perused the assessment order and first appellate order, material available on record and also large number of case laws cited. 8. In the instant case, certain information was disseminated by the Investigation Wing based on search operation conducted on Praveen Aggarwal Group of cases on 13.09.2012. As per the information received, Praveen Aggarwal Group was statedly found to be engaged in providing accommodation entries through shell companies managed and controlled by them. As per material seized by the Investigation Wing during search operations, names of several persons and companies were figured in the list of beneficiaries. The assessee company was also found to be in the list of beneficiaries. 8.1. Based on such information obtained from Investigation Wing, the case of the assessee was re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arks are accepted, this would mean that the lender has to keep the funds idle in the bank accounts for some period before giving loans to others. Such approach is thus far-fetched. 8.4. The assessee also seeks to controvert the doubts raised by the AO about the 'source of source' with reference to proviso to section 68 inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2013 relevant to AY 2013-14. It is the contention of the assessee that the proviso inserted seeks to put onus on the assessee to explain 'source of source' only in the case of share capital, share application money, share premium and that too from AY 2013-14 onwards. None other than share capital transactions are not covered by the proviso and therefore requirement of proving 'source of source' do not apply to loan transactions per se. This view has been fortified by the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mod. Creations Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del); judgement of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.); and the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Smt Prem Anand (ITA No.3514/Del/2014) dated 13.04.2017. The assessee contends that the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e prospective insertion to proviso to section 68 of the Act from AY 2013-14 foisting such obligation and secondly, such proviso is limited in its scope and attributable to receipt of share application money, share capital, share premium etc. and does not extend to loan transactions. The legal propositions are derived from the judgement rendered in the case of Mod. Creations Pvt.Ltd. (supra); CIT vs Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments Ltd.(supra) and CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure P.Ltd. 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bom.). 9.2. It is trite that additions under s. 68 cannot be made merely on the basis of some perception of culpability towards receipt of loan. The money in the instant case has been received from a company whose financial standing has been demonstrated to be fairly good. The defining feature in the instant case is repayment of such loan in the subsequent years which distinguishes the facts of this case vis-a-vis the facts involved in NRI Steel and other judgements quoted by the Revenue authorities. 9.3. The factum of repayment quells the apprehension entertained by the Revenue. The over-riding factum of repayment of loan itself repels any form of disguise on the part of the....