TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,78,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') along with questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. In response, Director of the assessee company appeared from time to time and submitted the relevant information as called for. Ld. AR of the assessee was asked to submit the relevant details and justification on the issues, viz., (a) unsecured loans from persons who have not filed return of income, form 3CD; and (b) mis-match in sales turnover reported in audit report and ITR. The AO observed from the audited financials of the company that assessee has taken u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further he observed that the bank statement of the lender, Kamdhenu, was submitted in appeal proceedings but same cannot be accepted as evidence as no application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules') was submitted by the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by relying on various decisions to come to the conclusion that assessee has miserably failed to submit vital ingredients specified u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- "1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Commissioner of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsactions recorded were amounting to Rs. 4,33,75,000/-. He submitted that AO has proceeded to make addition of outstanding amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- only, therefore, Shri Amit Mittal is only a Director of the company and there is no requirement to file identity and creditworthiness of the same. With regard to genuineness, he submitted that confirmation of accounts submitted by the assessee clearly shows that it is a business transaction carried on for the purpose of business and prayed that the addition made by the AO may be deleted. 6. With regard to loan outstanding of Kamdhenu, he brought to our notice page 5 of the paper book and submitted that assessee has submitted before the AO that assessee has taken an unsecured loan of Rs. 1 crore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO, however assessee has filed all the relevant information before the ld. CIT (A). It is also fact on record that assessee has no doubt filed the information before the ld. CIT (A), however not followed the due procedure to file the same as additional evidences under Rule 46 of the Rules. In our considered view, the abovesaid fact was also confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) in his own order. However, he failed to give one more opportunity to the assessee to rectify the procedural defects in filing the additional evidences before him. Since ld. CIT (A) has failed to give one more opportunity to the assessee, in our considered view, the detailed evidences filed by the assessee before us clearly indicate that assessee has submitted confirmation le....