TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date of order 19/01/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai (in short, 'the Ld.AO') passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of order 16/12/2019. 2. The Registry has reported that the appeal was filed with a delay of 454 days. The Ld. AR submitted petition for condonation of delay with two affidavits executed by the Directors of the company and the Chartered Accountant of the assessee-company. One affidavit, affirmed on 06/09/2025 by Shri Narendra R. Gadekar, Director of the assessee-company, states that in Form No. 35, the communication email was mentioned as "[email protected]". Subsequently, the said Director, Shri Rajendra Hadiya, expired on 29/01....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as accommodation entry and treated this as a bogus transaction. The recorded reason was supplied to the assessee and accordingly assessee submitted to the objection that the alleged loan was not transacted to the impugned assessment year, but the assessee received this amount from M/s Piyali Trading Company, previously known as Revathy Resorts Pvt Ltd for A.Y. 2002-03. So, the entire transaction was made for financial year 2001-02 on 30/03/2002 amount to Rs. 50 lakhs each in 5 instalments in the State Bank of India, Novalakha Branch, Indore. Hence, the addition cannot be sustained for the impugned assessment year. Finally, the assessment was framed by addition amount to Rs. 2.5 crores with the total income of the assessee. Being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur attention to paragraphs 6.2 to 6.2.4 of the impugned appellate order, which are reproduced below: - "6.2 The appellant in its grounds of appeal 2, 3 and 4 has assailed the AO for making an addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- u/s 69 A of the Income Tax Act. The grounds are being taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition. The appellant has stated that the loan was taken in A.Y. 2002-03 and has submitted that the loan is still outstanding in its books. The appellant has again submitted that the loan from M/s Piyali Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was taken vide cheques no. 209763, 209764, 209765, 209766 and 209767 of Rs. 50 lakh each on 30.3.2002 and has further submitted that the case is reopened on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain matter connected with amount of additions, it had to be held that there was no denial of principles of natural justice if witnesses were not allowed to be cross-examined by assessee". 6.2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) has held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open for the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. The addition of Rs. 2.50 crores was confirmed by the Ld. AO under section 68 of the Act on account of an alleged bogus unsecured loan. The said amount was received from M/s Piyali Trading Company, formerly known as M/s Revathy Resorts Pvt. Ltd., in A.Y. 2002-03. As the impugned assessment order, the assessee was unable to discharge the onus regarding the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The Ld. AO further expressed dissatisfaction about the creditworthiness of the creditor. However, in the first appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished documents establishing the identity of the creditor, the bank statements evidencing ....