2025 (11) TMI 1483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs. 90.197/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 on 30.06.2021, copy of the same is placed in PB-17 of the assessee. In terms of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022, the said notice was treated as deemed to have been issued as notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act as per the amended provisions and consequently, after receiving the submission from the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed on dated 21.7.2022 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 22.07.2022, copy of the same is placed at PB pages 42. Thereafter, the re-assessment proce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leting the additions of Rs. 1,21,68,000/- and of Rs. 3,16,28,603/- made u/s 69C of the Act after considering the merits of the issue. However, Revenue has not challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) in holding the notice issued u/s 148 as invalid and quashed the entire reassessment proceedings. The relevant observations as made by Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.1.1 are as under: "6.1.1 I agree with the submission of the appellant and the case laws relied upon. The notice u/s.148 was issued on 22.07.2022, while as per the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, the notice should have been issued on 24.06.2022 i.e. within the surviving period. Hence, following the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court, the issue of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts of earlier years. For this the appellant had relied upon various judgments of various High Courts. (i) CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra. (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Raj.), (ii) CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Limited (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Del), (iii) Ivan Singh vs. ACIT, (2020) 116 taxmann.com 499 (Bom)(HC), (iv) Rita Stephen Pinto vs. ITO 19(2)(2), ITA No. 1219/Mum/2013 Relying upon the decisions as mentioned above, the addition of Rs. 1,21,68,000/- is deleted and appeal of the appellant is allowed. 6.2.3 The AO has made the addition of Rs. 3,16,28,603/- on account of loans received from M/s. Bazigar Trading Co. as creditworthiness of the loan could not be proved before the AO. 6.2.4 Now, before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orthiness of M/s.Bazigar Trading Co. before the AO and before me in the appellate proceedings. The appellant has relied upon the judgments of Hon. Delhi High Court and Hon. Delhi ITAT in support of the claim that creditworthiness cannot be denied on the basis of the fact that the loss making entity has given loans. I also agree with the contention of the appellant since that TDS has been deducted on the loans and the loans have been repaid in subsequent years, no addition can be made on this amount. Hence, the addition of Rs. 3,16,28,603/- is deleted and the appeal of the appellant is allowed. 7. The appeal of the appellant is Allowed." 6. From the perusal of the findings given by ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the asse....