TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 906
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, ab initio void inasmuch as there was no "reason to believe" that there was escapement of income. The initiation of reassessment and consequent reassessment order passed is illegal, unsustainable, ab initio void. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a protective basis, which is not legally valid, and erroneously treated the same as substantive, thereby uploading an assessment that lacked jurisdiction from the outset. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,50,000 under section 69A despite the assessee having explained the source of funds and routed the loan through account payee transfer. There w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k finding its place at page No. 60, wherein, the said trade license for supplying building materials is valid for the period of 2013-17. The case of the assessee falls within the FY 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15 and since the trading license is valid upto 2017, hence, the business of trading is also not disputed in respect of the assessee. The assessee had explained before the AO that through the salary income as well as trading income whatever surplus remains after meeting his expenses and family requirements, the said savings are given as loan and in lieu of that interest is earned by the assessee. The same facts have been placed before the department in respect of the earlier assessment and such facts have not been disputed by the depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Rakrakhyani (partner of the Firm M's. Shri Shakti Construction) perusal of the assessee's bank statement reveals that the said amount was deposited in cash and was thereafter transferred to Shri Santosh Kumar Rakrokiyani on the very next day. Moreover, the assessee has also claimed to have received salary income from the Firm Ma Shvi 15 through the bank account. A Shakti Construction during the year under consideration. 7.4.2. However, it is pertinent to mention that Shri Santosh Kumar Rakrakhyani is partner in the Firm M/s. Shri Shakti Construction (the same entity) from which the assessee earning salary income and Shel Santosh Kumar Rakrakhyani is the same concern to whom alleged unaccounted money has been routed in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn, or that he had any legitimate sources to justify the cash deposit and subsequent loan. This failure to substantiate the total income declared during the year under consideration, amount advanced and in light of the fact that the entire transaction originates from cash deposits leads to the conclusion that the assessee has not satisfactorily discharged his onus of earning capacity. Thee handwritten sale purchase bills submitted by the assessee are flimsy 7.6. Therefore, the findings of the AD are upheld in view of the following observations: * There is only one cash deposit transaction in the bank account in the entire year. * The whole amount is transferred in Mr. Santosh on the next day itself. * T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. That as per the mandate of the Act u/s 250 clauses (4) and (6) necessary enquiry needs to have been conducted by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and as quasi judicial authority he should have examined the genuineness of the loan given and the source of money that has been deposited. However, CIT(A)/NFAC has summarily dismissed the appeal without making speaking order. In other words, such addition has been sustained by CIT(A)/NFAC only on the basis of suspicion and the authority of law to impose tax cannot be held to exist if it is based on mere suspicion. That even the Ld. CIT-DR was unable to furnish any evidence suggesting that such transaction was nothing but routing of un-accounted money. That, however, the assessee had submi....