TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011-12 on 27.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 55,695/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018, after recording reasons and obtaining sanction under the Act. The reopening was based on information received from the DDIT (Investigation), Mumbai, to the effect that one Shri Nilesh Bharani, partner of M/s Evergreen Enterprises, in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, had allegedly admitted that the assessee had taken a cash loan of Rs. 39,00,000/- during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return of income on 12.11.2018, declaring the same income as returned originally. 3. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice dated 24.12.2018, enclosing a copy of the statement of Shri Nilesh Bharani recorded under section 132(4), and required the assessee to furnish confirmation, ledger account and ITR acknowledgement of M/s Evergreen Enterprises, failing which the amount was proposed to be added as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atural justice, holding that no prejudice was demonstrated to have been caused to the assessee. On the addition under section 68 of the Act, the CIT(A) concurred with the Assessing Officer and held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of explaining the alleged cash loan. The addition of Rs. 39,00,000/- was thus confirmed. 7. Further aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: I. Objection against confirming an invalid reassessment. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the "CIT (A)", has erred in confirming the validity of the reassessment in her case without appreciating the fact that the initiation of the reassessment itself is without any justification. (b) Your appellant respectfully submits that the initiation of reassessment itself in her case is not valid and consequently all actions taken in pursuance of such invalid reassessment are void ab initio. The appellant respectfully submits that the reassessment in her case is not valid for the following reasons: i. That the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the CIT (A) is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be set-aside for this reason as well. (c) The appellant, therefore, alternatively prays that the order of the CIT (A) may please be set-aside or any other relief as deemed fit may please be allowed to the appellant. 8. During the course of hearing before us the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee reiterated the facts as borne out from the assessment records and the appellate proceedings. The AR drew our attention to the statement of Shri Nilesh Bharani, partner of M/s Evergreen Enterprises, recorded, a copy of which is placed at page No. 33 of the paper book. It was submitted that a careful reading of the said statement clearly demonstrates that there is no specific mention or identification of the assessee by name therein. According to the learned AR, the addition has thus been made merely on presumptions without any direct or cogent material linking the assessee to the alleged cash loan transaction. 9. The learned AR further submitted that in Question No. 72 of the said statement, reference is made to Annexure-2. However, the said Annexure-2 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the material available on record, and examined the orders passed by the lower authorities. We have also gone through the paper book filed by the assessee and the judicial precedents relied upon before the lower authorities. 15. At the outset, we note that the assessee has raised specific grounds challenging the validity of reopening under section 147 of the Act. However, during the course of hearing before us, the learned AR did not advance any specific arguments on the legality or jurisdiction of the reassessment proceedings. The learned AR confined his submissions primarily to the merits of the addition made under section 68 of the Act. In the absence of any specific arguments advanced at the time of hearing, and considering that the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A), we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits of the addition made under section 68 of the Act, without expressing any independent opinion on the validity of the reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the grounds challenging reopening are treated as not pressed. 16. The substantive issue for our consideration is the additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all, and there is no whisper therein suggesting that the assessee had taken any cash loan from M/s Evergreen Enterprises. II. The Assessing Officer placed reliance on Annexure-2 referred to in Question No. 72 of the statement, allegedly containing names of persons involved in cash transactions. However, the said Annexure-2 was neither referred to nor discussed in the assessment order, nor was a copy of the same ever furnished to the assessee despite specific requests made during assessment proceedings. III. The assessee had repeatedly requested the Assessing Officer to furnish: - Annexure-2 referred to in the statement, - the alleged telephone diary, - copies of statements recorded under section 132(4), - and any other material linking the assessee with the alleged cash loan. Admittedly, no such material was provided to the assessee. 21. These submissions, though forming part of the record before the CIT(A), have not been specifically addressed or rebutted in the impugned appellate order. The CIT(A) proceeded largely on the premise that the assessee failed to cooperate and failed to file submissions, which, on verif....