TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to grant appropriate relief in accordance with the law. 2.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO without considering the fact that the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 was bad in law on various technical and jurisdictional grounds. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO without appreciating the fact that recourse to section 147 of the Act would be unavailable in cases where the AO is empowered to proceed u/s. 153C of the Act. 4.0 That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO without appreciating the fact that there was no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the year under consideration and hence assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 by issuance of notice u/s. 148 beyond the period of 4 years was invalid and as such, could not be sustained in law. 5.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in uph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the fact that the appellant has discharged onus laid down u/s. 68 and 69 of the Act and hence additions made were baseless and invalid. 10.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO u/s. 68 on account on unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs. 2.75 crores and u/s. 69 on account on investment made amounting to Rs. 7,20,34,392/-out of the unexplained funds without considering the facts and reply filed by the appellant. 10.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s. 68 since bank statement cannot be construed to be books maintained by the assessee for the purpose of section 68 of the Act. 11.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in treating the appellant company as an accommodation entry recipient by relying on statement recorded at back of the appellant without providing an opportunity by the Ld. AO to cross examine the same. 12.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....meet the requirement of law hence completely vague and untenable. 6.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO without considering the fact, that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO for the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO without considering the fact that the reasons u/s. 148 were recorded merely on the basis of suspicion and assumptions/ presumptions derived from search conducted in case of M3M Group. 6.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO without considering the fact that the material which has been made the basis of recording reasons to believe for initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has never been supplied to the appellant. 7.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO without consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 28/12/2018, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/01/2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), dated 28/01/2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the Grounds mentioned above. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing on Ground No. 2 of the Appeal submitted that, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is unsigned, therefore, submitted that the assessment proceedings initiated pursuant to unsigned notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be considered as invalid. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO reported in 451 ITR 27 and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam, in the case of MahankaliJyothi Vs. ITO in ITA No. 22/Viz/2023, sought for allowing the Ground No. 2 of the Assessee. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the additions have been made in accordance with law by issuing the notice in the manner known to law, the Assessee has not objected or raised the above contention before the Lower Authorities, now in the stage of the appeal before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g on the Ground No. 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 of the Assessee, Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the A.O. passed the reassessment without considering the detailed reply and documents furnished by the Assessee, such as ledger for purchase of land along with copy of sale deeds and copy of confirmation of accounts, ITR acknowledgment, bank statements and audited financials of all the parties form which loans has been taken. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further submitted that the Assessee has duly repaid the loan amount within 60 days from the date of receipt through banking channel and also proved the genuineness of the transaction by providing cogent evidence. Thus, submitted that the Lower Authorities committed error in making and confirming the addition. 11. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee has not proved the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders therefore, the addition has been rightly made which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, sought for dismissal of the Ground No. 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 of the Assessee. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f firstly, the prospective insertion to proviso to section 68 of the Act from AY 2013-14 foisting such obligation and secondly, such proviso is limited in its scope and attributable to receipt of share application money, share capital, share premium etc. and does not extend to loan transactions. The legal propositions are derived from the judgement rendered in the case of Mod. Creations Pvt. Ltd. (supra); CIT vs Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investments Ltd.(supra) and CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bom.). 9.2. It is trite that additions under s. 68 cannot be made merely on the basis of some perception of culpability towards receipt of loan. The money in the instant case has been received from a company whose financial standing has been demonstrated to be fairly good. The defining feature in the instant case is repayment of such loan in the subsequent years which distinguishes the facts of this case vis-a-vis the facts involved in NRI Steel and other judgements quoted by the Revenue authorities. 9.3. The factum of repayment quells the apprehension entertained by the Revenue. The over-riding factum of repayment of loan itself repels any form of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessee's Appeal are allowed. 16. Since we have allowed the Grounds No. 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 of the Assessee and set aside the assessment order, other Grounds of Appeal requires no adjudication. ITA No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) 17. Assessee filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. 72,839/- for the year under consideration. The case of the Assessee was selected for re-assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. The A.O. completed the assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w. Section 144 of the Act vide order dated 28/12/2018 by making an addition of Rs. 4,29,13,125/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/12/2018, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/01/2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28/01/2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the Grounds mentioned above. 18. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing on Ground No. 5.0 of the Appeal submitted that, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued before supplying reasons to believe to the Assessee, therefore, submitted tha....