TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 236
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as the 'Act'] for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: "1. That impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act (dated 26.12.2017) and further impugned first appeal order passed u/s 250 of 1961 Act (dated 15.04.2024) are both invalid and deserve to be quashed in toto because impugned assessment framed u/s 143(2)/143(3) of the Act, solely/merely on basis of stated investigation wing report (in turn based on stated search based findings) could only be done if at all u/s 153C of the Act (after following due/prescribed procedure), and not u/s 143(3) of the Act as done in extant case; 2. That impugned assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment order passed u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act (dated 26.12.2017) and further impugned first appeal order passed u/s 250 of 1961 Act (dated 15.04.2024) are both totally invalid and unlawful in so far as the impugned additions made u/s 68 & Scc 69C respectively amounting to Rs 51,00,000 AND Rs. 102,000 are considered as subject "loan" transaction recd. through banking channel has been already repaid through banking channel which is sufficient to delete the impugned additions;" 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30-09-2015 declaring total income of Rs, 2,18,710/-. Subsequently, information received from the Asstt. Director of Income Tax about the donation of rupees two cror....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttedly assessee has paid the loan through banking channel after deducting the TDS. The assessee has filed the document before the AO but without considering these documents the AO passed the assessment order. The Ld. Counsel brought to our notice the financial statements (paper book Page No. 14 to 17) to prove that the loan was taken and repaid by banking channel. Reliance has placed on the following decisions; (i) Amee Mahasukhlal Parekh vs. ITO Ward 1(1) (1) in civil Application No. 18254 /2022 (ii) PCIT-1 Surat vs HI-Choice Processors Pvt Ltd in R/Tax Appeal No. 680/2023 dated 04-12-2023 (iii) PCIT-1 Vadodara vs. Ojas Tarmake Pvt. Ltd in R/Tax appeal No. 533/2023 dated 22-08-2023 (iv) PCIT-1 Vs Merrygo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as received the unsecured loan through the banking channel and repaid thru the banking channel as under :- Name of the Lender Amount of the Loan Date on which loan taken Date of interest payment Date of repayment of loan M/s. Citzy Infraheights Pvt. Ltd. 50,00,000 09.07.20 15 (Pg 38 of the PB) 30.12.20 17 (Pg 40 of the PB) 06.12.2017 30.12.2017 (Pg 39 & 40 of the PB) M/s. CEA Consultants Pvt. Lt 50,00,000 18.03.2016 (Pg 81 of the PB) 27.04.2016 28.03.2017 (Pg 81 of the PB) 17.03.2017 18.03.2017 21.03.2017 (Pg 83 & 84 of the PB) 12. From the above, it is clear that the assessee has repaid the loan even before the assessment was reopened. When the assessee takes the loan and repaid along w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d is therefore submitted that provisions of section 68 are not applicable in the case of the assessee. 28. It is submitted that the principles laid down in the various rulings are that the assessee Company has to establish that the shareholders/creditor exist and they have invested in the share capital/borrowings of the assessee-company, The assessee had laid substantial evidence and established all these facts. 29. It is further submitted that from all the material placed on record by the assessee, there is no doubt that the assessee has fulfilled its onus of. * Establishing the source of amount received. * Genuineness of the transaction and * Credit worthiness of the party. 30. The abo....