TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee company filed return of income on 04.11.2017 showing income of Rs. 9,91,34,394/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) Act. The revised return of the assessee was selected by CASS for Limited Scrutiny for assessment year 2017-18 to verify two issues i.e. (i) Bonus or Commission Paid to Employee and (ii) Unsecured Loans. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2019 and duly served upon the assessee. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 26.09.2019, 15.11.2019 and 22.11.2019 along with detailed questionnaire were issued. The assessee furnished details online through e-proceedings which were duly examined. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 12.12.2019 made additions of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act and Rs. 51,39,694/- due to disallowance of bogus interest expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. 3. Against order dated 12.12.2019 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 27.08.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/revenue preferred present appeal with following grounds: "(1) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....316-HC-DEL-IT (iv) PCIT Vs Bikram Singh Delhi High Court 2017 [2017] 85 (Delhi)/[2017] 250 Taxman 273 (Delhi)/[2017] 399 ITR 407 (Delhi) (v) Sitaram Ramchand das Patel Vs. ITO Gujarat High Court 2018 [2018] 95 taxman.com 290 (Gujarat) (vi) Seema Jain Vs ACIT Delhi High Court 2018 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi)/[2018] 257 Taxman 380 (Delhi)/[2018] 406 ITR 411 (Delhi) (vii) C.V. Ravi Vs. ITO Supreme Court 2021 2021 [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC)/[2021 281 Taxman 362 (SC) (viii) CIT vs. N Tarika Properties Investments P. Ltd. Delhi High Court 2013 40 taxmann.com 225 (Delhi) [2013] 6.1 Non-mentioning of the section or indication of a wrong section would vitiate the assessment order. Section 292B which states that no assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings taken by the authorities under the Act shall be invalid by reason of any mistake, defect or omission if such notice or proceedings or assessment is otherwise valid under the Act. This provision embodies the principle that mere non-mentioning or mentioning of a wrong provision of law in a proceedings or order can not be a ground to invalidate it if that is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) and no reasons have been shown before us as to why they should have been admitted. In the absence of any clinching evidence to show the nature and source of the monies deposited into the bank account which belongs to the assessee, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as the assessee's unexplained income. We confirm the addition and dismiss the ground." 6.2 An addition u/s 68 is permissible without rejecting books of account. When it is argued that once audited books of accounts are accepted as such no addition is permissible or in other words addition u/s 68 can not be made without rejecting books of account or that section 68 does not apply to a sum already disclosed as income. It is not correct and not acceptable because section 68 is outside the Chapter-IVD [Sections 28 to 44BD] of the Act. This addition is unlike additions u/s 36, 37 etc which come under the head business and profession. Rejection of books of account comes under section 145[3] while section 145[1] provides that it is for computation of income under the heads "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession" or "Income from Other Sources". Therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 68 of the income tax act. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 is also dismissed." 6.4 So far as the reliance by the appellant on several judgments presuming to be in its favour it is submitted that in those case the direct evidences, as available in this case were not available before the Hon'ble Benches hence, they are not applicable in this case. As the facts are always distinct and separate in each case the principles of one case cannot be applied blindly to another case. In Union of India Vs Major Bahadur Singh [2006] 1SCC 368 [Para 9 & 11] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the observations made in a judgment must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Their lordships of the Supreme Court further held that circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact, may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision was held to be not proper. Thus, principles enunciated therein are different from the facts of the instant case and hence the appellant's plea that these judgments are applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der: Details fetched from Company Master Data Certificate of Incorporation Copy of MOA of the lender company, relevant point no.16. Copy of acknowledgement of ITR for PAN Details. Credit Worthiness of the Lender Party: -The Bank statement of the said lender company. -The financial of the Company. Genuineness of the Transaction: Ledger account of the lender company Confirmation of accounts Bank statement of the assessee company evidencing the loan received and interest paid Bank statement of the lender company 1. Loan of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- taken from M/s Suraj Dall Mills Pvt. Ltd. Identity of the Lender: Details fetched from Company Master Data Certificate of Incorporation Copy of acknowledgement of ITR for PAN Details. Credit Worthiness of the Lender Party: -The Bank statement of the said lender company. - The financial of the Company. Genuineness of the Transaction: Ledger account of the lender company Confirmation of accounts Bank statement of the assessee company evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing officer is completely opposed to settled legal principle enunciated and he has arrived at conclusions contrary to the legal principle on this issue. Further the AO is finding fault with the assessee for the alleged failure of its investors in providing beyond doubt they have the capacity to invest at the moment they did in the assessee company. That is clearly a perverse view, as the AO is not expected to perform a near impossibility. The assessee cannot call upon its investors to disclose, all such business transection they carried on in the immediate past. The assessee cannot also call upon its investors to proof their good business hence in investing in the assessee company; as such investors cannot gain any controlling stake. Considering the detail submissions of the appellant and in view of the above discussion it is concluded that the appellant is only required to explain the source of investment and when once that gets established, it is for the department to proceed against the investor in case those investors have not properly explained their own sources for investing in the assessee company. Since the appellants company established their identity, genuinenes....