TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prescribed limitation period from order under section 250 on dated 22/02/2024 The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to reasons beyond the control of the appellant. 2 I am an illiterate individual engaged in the business of wholesale and retail trading of Petrol and Diesel and has minimal knowledge of taxation laws and procedures. Due to My Lack of Knowledge & awareness, I am entirely dependent on My tax consultant for compliance with tax matters, including the filing of the appeal. 3. Unfortunately, the earlier consultant engaged by me has failed to inform or update me regarding the adverse assessment order and the necessity to file an appeal within the prescribed period I was unaware of the consequences of the delay 4. On 28/02/2025, upon communication with a CA Firm M/s ADN AND ASSOCIATES, Chartered Accountants, I became aware of the CIT(A) Order and immediately took necessary steps to file the present appeal without any further delay. 5. The delay caused is purely due to Lack of my Knowledge and awareness of the me and the negligence of the earlier consultant. I have always been diligent in complying with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etrol pump business everyday appellant requires lump sum amount to pay to the Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) as Advance payments are done to IOCL and only after the receipt of advance. IOCL dispatches the Petrol/ Diesel tankers to the Petrol pump of the Appellant. All the payments to IOCL are made through Banking channel only. Appellant has a turnover of Rs.33,43,04,077/- (Rs 33.43 Cr) out of which only Rs.43,70,355/- was unsecured loan and repayment done out of that is Rs.14,03,710/- and Rs.29,66,645 is left as closing balance at the end of the year. Appellant has submitted Pan card and credit worthiness report of the lender during the assessment proceeding also. Particular OPENING loan taken TOTAL LOAN TAKEN CLOSING BALANCE REPAYMENT Arun Kumar Majhi Bargaon Sundergarh - 770016 12,00,000 12,00,000 1200000 - Babita Pattnaik Angul Town Angul 2,50,000 2,50,000 0 2,50,000 Kali Kinkar Das Bhubaneswar 6,99.000 6,99,000 0 6,99,000 Seema Kishan Nalco Nagar, Angul-759145 14,00,000 14,00,000 1400000 - Tikinu Kishan Nalco Nagar, Angul-759145 577645 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearing system through a bank account and also cross the limit of twenty thousand rupees or more as per section 269SS under Income Tax Act 1962. The Legal verbatim of law are as below- ""269SS. No person shall take or accept from any other person (herein referred to as the depositor), any loan or deposit or any specified sum, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, if, - (a) the amount of such loan or deposit or specified sum or the aggregate amount of such loan, deposit and specified sum; or (b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit or specified sum, any loan or deposit or specified sum taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid; or (c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is twenty thousand rupees or more. If assessee take or accept loan from any other person using the Bank Account/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. AO has not accepted the documents submitted by the Appellant such as including PAN of Lender, ITR copies, and bank statements of appellant to establish creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The A.O has not provided sufficient opportunity to the Assessee to prove the above unsecured Loan and pass the adverse order. Non-consideration-of-Third-Part-Confirmations The Ld. AO has not considered the third-party confirmations which have been submitted for some of the lenders, but the assessment has concluded. The Ld. AO had not provided the Appellant an opportunity to prove the lenders before treating the loans as unexplained. The failure to allow such opportunity has resulted in an unjustified addition, which should be deleted. 4. Incorrect Invocation of Section 115BBE Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the taxation of unexplained income, including cash credits, unexplained investments, and other such unexplained amounts. Section 115BBE is applicable only when additions are made under sections 68 to 69D in cases where the nature and source of income are not satisfactorily explained.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional Grounds The Appellant hereby craves to submit additional Grounds, evidence, documents, explanation, Judicial Pronouncements etc during the ITAT proceedings in order explain its position to obtain adequate relief." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed her return of income for AY 2018-19 u/s 139(1) of the Act showing total income of Rs. 20,87,570/- on 28.12.2018. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') on the issue of unsecured loans and transaction with the company whose registration had been cancelled by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. In response to the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act the assessee submitted reply. Since the creditworthiness of the creditor Arun Kumar Majhi was not established for loan of Rs. 12 Lakh and the assessee failed to submit her reply and the proposed addition to the total income of the assessee at Rs. 73,48,000/- being the loan received from six persons during the year, after discussing the facts of the case a sum of Rs. 73,48,000/- was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act including a sum of Rs. 24 Lakh from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see on 27.02.2024 only after confirmation by the new consultant. It was requested that only 27.02.2025 may be considered as the actual date of order of the appeal. Various reliefs have been claimed in the course of appeal. The loans are stated to be received from the relatives as and when required and repayment was done through banking channel. It is stated that there is no such transaction from Ashadeep Homes Pvt Ltd during the FY 2017-18 and neither the amount was received and nor the amount of payment is appearing in any of the bank accounts of the assessee. It is further submitted that the documentary evidences have not been considered and reliance has been placed upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Bansal Separators and Spares Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 3173/MUM/2022 order dated 31.05.2023. It is requested that the entire demand of tax may be dropped by setting aside both the orders passed by Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 6. We have considered the submissions made. The assessee has stated that the accounts are audited but the same had not been considered by ....