TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2017-18. We have taken both the appeals together as the order passed in ITA No. 1007/Kol/2024 for AY 2016-17 shall give effect to the order passed in ITA No. 1425/Kol/2024 for AY 2017-18. So, we taken ITA No. 1007/kol/2024 for AY. 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income on 12.10.2016 after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, 1961 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. A search and seizure u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 26.11.2015 and on subsequent dates against the key person of Jhunjhunwala group of cases and during the course of search and survey operation cash, jewelry and books of accounts were seized. The notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with set of questionnaires ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded by the Investigation Wing and without independent examination and without allowing any opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the same. The ld. Counsel further submits that the assessee had repaid most of the loans with accrued interest to the loan creditors with all the necessary evidential documents. The submission of the Ld. A.R is that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO. On perusal of the assessment order, it appears to us that the search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted, we further find that an amount of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- has been declared by the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two loan creditors namely Unity Prodev Ventures Pvt Ltd. & Incredible Nirman Pvt. Ltd. had confirmed that they had provided unsecured loans to the assessee company and these two above loan creditors are also being assessed to Income Tax regularly and they have also disclosed the source of the investments in the assessee company with submitted ledger copies and relevant bank statements for the FY 2015-16. Additionally, in the remand report, the AO himself submitted that the two aforesaid loans were repaid by the assessee company in FY 2016-17. The AO's observation in the remand report that "Now it may be noted that the assessee company has made repayment of loan to every loan creditor after the date of search operation i.e. after 26.11.2015....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... certain entry operators of Kolkata during the aforesaid search and seizure operation by the Investigation wing. The similar position of law was observed in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxmann 213 (HC), where the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held the following: "A person can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. Once it is found that an assessee has actually taken money from depositor/lender who has been fully identified, the assessee/borrower cannot be called upon to explain, much less prove the affairs of such third party, which he is not even supposed to know or about which he cannot be held to be accredited with any knowledge." 8. Going over the aforesaid facts as discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) we ....