TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2024 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1.1 The order passed by u/s. 250 passed on 06.11.2024 by NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short CIT(A)" upholding the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- in respect of Shri Sanjivkumar Kiritkumar Patel towards unsecured loan and Rs. 29,87,775/- towards the sundry creditor - M/s Sai Trading Co. made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that the remand report categorically stated that Shri Sanjivkumar Kiritkumar Patel had submitted all the details as called for by notice u/s 133(6) which the AO had not considered while....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 133(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee did not discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of Shri Sanjivkumar Kiritkumar Patel and treated the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition with the following observations: "On due consideration of all the above, it is noted that the appellant had filed certain evidences before the A.O during scrutiny proceedings which were not considered. On remand of the appellant's submissions in the present appellate proceedings and on examination of all the evidence on record, the AO has pointed out certain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer as well. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that Mr. Sanjivkumar Kiritkumar Patel had submitted reply on 27.04.2024 and in addition to that in the Remand Report the Assessing Officer also noted that he had filed copy of bank statement with the Vijay Co. Op. Bank Ltd. and also copy of ledger account of the assessee, before the Assessing Officer for his consideration. However, despite this fact Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in a summary manner without assigning any specific reason. 6. In response, Ld. D.R. submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by noting that the Assessing Officer had pointed out certain lacuna in the evidence and accordingly, he had rightly sustained add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad also filed return of income of the said party in which the said party had declared income of Rs. 25,38,990/- for the impugned year under consideration which also establishes the creditworthiness of the said party. In addition, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has not pointed out to any specific lacuna / shortfall in the supporting evidences produced by the assessee while sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, looking into the evidences filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- is liable to be deleted. 9. In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Ground No. 2:- Addition of sundry creditors of Rs. 29,87,770/- 10. The brief facts in relati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said party as well as the opening and closing balance was also submitted before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 23.03.2021. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that a basic perusal of the details filed by the assessee would demonstrate that the amount which was added in the hands of the assessee during the impugned assessment year was only on account of an opening balance, which was coming from the prior assessment years. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that without dealing with this aspect, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 12.1 In response, Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders. 12.2 In the case of Ivan Sing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the appellant-assessee, for the assessment year 2009-10, which means for the previous year 2008-09, in terms of the definition under section 3 of the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not referring to all....