TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y"] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds raised in Appeal-Memo (Form No. 36). 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee filed return of income of relevant AY 2015-16 declaring certain incomes which were duly assessed. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 for re-opening assessee's case u/s. 147 on the reasoning that the assessee has received accommodation entry from M/s Trimurthi Finvest Ltd. ["M/s Trimurthi"], a shell company of Shri Sharad Darak. Ultimately, the AO finalized re-opened assessment vide assessment-order dated 11.09.2021 after making an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of principal amount of bogus loan taken by assessee from M/s Trimurthi. Subsequently, L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legal authority to invoke revisionary jurisdiction as per 'doctrine of merger'. In support of this proposition, Ld. AR relied upon three decisions, viz. JMC Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2016) 136 DTR 0279 (Guj), Smt. Renuka Philip Vs. ITO (2018) 12 TMI 129 and M/s RNR Devcon Vs. PCIT (2019) 11 TMI (1000) (Trib-Indore). (ii) That, in the reasons recorded by AO for re-opening assessee's case, there is no whisper about interest payment. Hence, the AO was not wrong in not making any disallowance while passing assessment-order. While arguing this, Ld. AR though accepted in open court that whenever the loan is treated as bogus, the disallowance of interest paid thereon automatically follows and is always made by assessing authorities.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered rival submissions of both sides and examined the case record. There are three contentions raised by Ld. AR for assessee/appellant. The first contention is such that the assessee's appeal against the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by AO on account of principal amount of bogus loan is pending in first-appeal before CIT(A) and therefore the PCIT did not have jurisdiction to undertake revision u/s. 263. In this regard, when we read the provision of Explanation 1(c) to section 263(1), we find that the PCIT's power u/s. 263 extends to such matter as had not been considered and decided in first-appeal. Ld. DR is very correct in submitting that the disallowance of interest is different from addition of principal loan made by AO and the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed transaction of accommodation at the time of framing assessment and make required additions/disallowances. In fact, Ld. AR for assessee accepts that that whenever the loan is treated as bogus, the disallowance of interest paid thereon automatically follows and is always made by assessing authorities. Therefore, the second contention is also rejected. The third and last contention of Ld. AR is such that the assessee has declared presumptive income u/s. 44AD and in a way not claimed separate deduction of impugned interest. Therefore, the assessment-order passed by AO cannot be termed as erroneous or even prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This contention was also raised by assessee before Ld. PCIT, vide Para 5.02 / Page 8 of reply date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally mentioned that Shri Sharad Darak had also admitted that he had received commission in cash for providing accommodation entries. Therefore, the assessee has in fact paid commission for which the AO ought to have made addition. 10. In rejoinder, Ld. AR submitted that there is no mention of commission payment in the reasons recorded by AO. The payment of commission is just an allegation on presumption made by PCIT. He submitted that the statement of Shri Sharad Darak, as mentioned by Ld. PCIT in Para 4.2 of revision-order and being relied by Ld. DR, was not available with AO. He submitted that there was no single material on the record of learned AO which could have given a slightest ground for the AO for making the addition on the all....