TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 899
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inafter referred to as the "Impugned order". The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order dated 21.12.2016 which was passed u/s 143(3 of the Act, the assessee's total income exigible to tax was computed and assessed at Rs. 1,71,77,664/- [ (Rs. 4 lakhs as per Return of Income) plus Rs. 1,67,26,884/- (additions of unsecured loans u/s 68) + Rs. 50,000/- (disallowance of various expenses)]. The aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the "impugned assessment order". 2.2 That the assessee is a private limited company incorporated in the year 2007. The assessee company is engaged in the busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless - (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: As stated in above para that during the course of enquiry the lender Jay Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd. was not found at the registered office therefore the identity of the lender is not established. The creditworthiness of lender is either not proved in view of enquiry report mentioned above. The genuineness of transactions is not beyond doubt as the identity is itself not established and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed being illegal and wrong, the same, therefore, require to be quashed. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the decisions of various tribunals decisions. The order so passed ignoring the direct decisions of Hon'ble Tribunals including jurisdictional Tribunal is illegal and wrong, the same therefore, require to be quashed. 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in sending notices on wrong mail id. That in form no 35 email id of [email protected] was given. However the notices were sent to some other mail id i.e. the order was passed without service of a proper notice is illegal and wrong, the same therefore, require to be quashed. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous lenders including M/s Jayant Securities & Finance Ltd and M/s Jay-Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd. 1.4 The said loans were taken to meet the short term requirements of business and were repaid along with the interest by the assessee Company through proper banking channel. 1.5 During the course of assessment proceedings assessee Company had submitted proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the above stated lenders, which includes their confirmation, bank statements, Audited Balance Sheet, copy of Income Tax Returns and source of amount advanced to the assessee Company. 1.6 Learned AO relying on the finding of various income tax officials came to the conclusion that the loans are not genuine. The AO, however himself not conducte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt any addition u/s 68. 1.13 Same view was taken by Hon'ble ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Sanjay Shukla vs. ACIT and ACIT Central-1 vs. M/s Shri Krishna Devcon Pvt Ltd. 1.14 That in view of the fact that the assessee furnished all the documents required to prove the loan taken as genuine and that the Hon'ble ITAT Indore Bench is consistently taking the view that M/s Jayant Securities & Finance Ltd & M/s Jay Jyoti India Pvt Ltd are not paper companies, the addition of Rs. 1,67,26,884/- may please be deleted". It is categorically asserted in the synopsis filed today that core addition of Rs. 1,67,26,884/- is totally unjustified by both the lower authorities i.e Ld. A.O & CIT(A). That unsecured loans taken from M/s Jayant Secur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n record. It was pleaded that lender in the above cases (mostly) are Jay Jyoti India P. Ltd and Jayant Security & Finance Ltd who have been held not to be paper company's. Their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness are all established and contention of the revenue that they are paper company's and entry provider's are negated. Basis this Ld. AR pleaded and submitted before us that facts and circumstances of the present case are almost similar and identical to the facts of above cited cases and that this Tribunal should follow above cited cases and should finally set aside the "impugned order". Per contra Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the Revenue fairly submitted that issues in the present appeal are covered by above cited ord....