TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. ON VALIDITY OF THE ORDER: 2.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and void since the same is in violation of Circular 19 of 2019 and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming such an order. 3. ON VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING: 3.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment order passed by the Ld. AO as affirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and void for want of jurisdiction since the same is contrary to the extant law and also because the necessary pre-conditions for initiation as well as completion of a re-assessment are not fulfilled in the present case. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law and void since the assessment should have been framed u/s. 153C of the Act and not u/s. 147 of the Act. Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment proceeding is bad in law and void also because the same is based on material gathered at the back of the Appellant without prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated that the assessee received the said accommodation entry through Duke Business Pvt. Ltd. (formerly JPK Trading Pvt. Ltd.) during the relevant year. 2.2. Based on this information, the Ld. AO issued a notice under section 148 on 07.03.2019. In response, the assessee filed its return of income u/s. 148 of the Act on 26.03.2019. The case was thereafter taken up for scrutiny, and notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued on 23.09.2019. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished relevant details, including confirmations, bank statements, and documentary evidences to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions in question. The assessee also submitted that the alleged unsecured loan was duly repaid along with applicable interest. The Ld. AO, however, did not consider the evidences filed by the assessee and relied solely on the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, without granting an opportunity to cross-examine. The Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 69C of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 1,03,78,740/- treating the impugned transaction as unexplained expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the addition amounting to Rs. 1 Crore, u/s. 68 of the Act and disallowance of Rs. 3,78,740/- on account of interest paid on such loan u/s. 69C of the Act. 5.1. The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee provided preliminary documents to establish the creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the loan transactions undertaken by assessee from Duke Business Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that based on an intimation received from Investigation Wing, the authorities below proceeded on the footing that the assessee is a beneficiary of the alleged loan from Duke Business Pvt. Ltd., which is one of the entities manage and controlled by Praveen Kumar Jain, a hawala operator. 5.2. The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee filed evidence pertaining to the loan transactions and confirmations from the lender proving the genuineness of the loan taken. He submitted that, the assessee also has repaid the loan with interest to the lender which is verifiable from the bank statements of the assessee. He also submitted that TDS was deducted against the interest paid by the assessee to the lender. 5.3. The Ld.AR submitted that authorities below did not have iota of evidence to rebut the evidence furnish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd adopt that view after having given our thought to various issues raised and the decisions cited by Mr. Tralshawalla and finding that on a very fundamental Prakash R Mehta (HUF) aspect, the revenue was not justified in making addition at the time of reassessment without ion at the time having first given the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the deponent on the statements relied upon by the ACIT. Quite apart from denial of an opportunity of cross examination, the revenue did not even provide the material on the basis of which the department sought to conclude that the loan was a bogus transaction. 17. In our view in the light of the fact that the monies were advanced apparently by the account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least that the revenue should have done was to grant an opportunity to the assessee to meet the case against him by providing the material sought to be used against assessee in arriving before passing the order of reassessment. This not having been done, the denial of such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the reassessment and therefore renders the orders passed by the CIT(A) ....