TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relating to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in media publication and printing, which also holds substantial equity in M/s.Sarvag Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. (now M/s.Efcee Global Shipping Pvt. Ltd.), engaged in shipbreaking activities at Alang, Gujarat. For the assessment year 2018-19, the assessee filed its original Return of Income on 30.08.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 13,12,980. 2.1. Subsequently, based on information from a search action conducted on 25-11-2021 in the Digiana Group, Indore reopening proceedings wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the property did not appear in the Schedule AL-1 of the ITR for A.Y. 2018-19. The Agreement to Sale was not registered and executed on manual stamp paper and attested by a Notary Public only. The documents were self-serving and hence unreliable. Cross-examination of Shri Rajesh Vyas was not effectively undertaken due to his absence in the scheduled Virtual Conference. Therefore, the Ld AO passed the reassessment order on 28.03.2023, treating the sum of Rs.3.50 crore as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and charging the same to tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puted. The entire amount advanced by the M/s VRR Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. was through banking channels, this fact has been made part of the assessment order by the AO. It has also been seen from the submissions made by the appellant that the entire amount was repaid in subsequent year through banking channels. In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, submissions made by the appellant and various judicial pronouncements, the addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- is hereby deleted. " 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, Revenue is in appeal raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pages 78-106, 134-158 of the Paper Book, which confirm the receipt and repayment of the amount. Further the property transactions were recorded in the books of account of both parties. Thus the assessee repaid the entire amount and the repayment is verifiable through banking channels. Thus there is No loan agreement existed, hence, TDS was not applicable. The AO's refusal to reschedule the cross-examination of Shri Rajesh Vyas, despite the assessee's request, violated the principles of natural justice. 5.1. Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on several decisions, including: * CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [(2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195]; * Kishorilal Santoshilal v. CIT [(1995) 216 ITR 9 (Raj)]; * PCIT v. Aditya Birla Telec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l agreement to cancel the transaction, with Rs.25 lakh to be paid as compensation; confirmation letters and ledger account from M/s. VRR Financial, copies of bank statements reflecting the transaction, copies of ITRs and audit reports of both the assessee and M/s. VRR Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. which are placed at page nos. 58 to 78 of the Paper Book. Copy of the Board Resolution dated 05-03-2018 of M/s. VRR Financial Services placed at page no.66 of the Paper Book authorising Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi to execute Agreement/Deed and documents on behalf of the company to buy Plot no.1 & 2 Ghanchiwad, Rajkot having industrial construction of 164.25 sq.mtrs. 6.1. The Ld AO has not made any independent inquiry about the sale transaction by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6] by M/s. VRR Financial makes it clear the identity and genuineness of the transaction and not on accommodation entry. 8. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT -vs- Ambe Tradecorp Pvt Ltd. reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27 held that where assessee took loan from two parties and assessee had furnished requisite material showing identity of lenders and that assessee was not beneficiary, as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition u/s.68 could be made on account of such loan by observing as follows:- "68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bogus loan) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Assessee received loans from two parties - Assessing officer treated same to be sham for reason that creditworthiness of loan gi....