AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). As the issue involved in the two appeals are identical, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. We shall first take up the appeal in ITA No. 1688/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2014-15. ITA No.1688/Ahd/2025 : A. Y. 2014-15. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 declaring income of Rs. 13,95,430/-. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing reflected on Insight Portal of the Department that the assessee had taken accommodation entry of Rs. 47,41,600/- during the year in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. It is submitted that the reasons recorded itself is Incorrect, formed relying upon Incorrect information with incorrect assumption of fictitious loan transactions and it has no nexus or relevance with Appellant's case. On facts and circumstances of the case, the entire reopening of assessment is completely illegal and unjustifiable and therefore the Assessment order passed u/s 147 rws 143(3) of the Act be quashed and set aside accordingly. The same be held now. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made of Rs. 47,41,600/- on account of fictitious loan transactions from the companies managed by Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed complete details with relevant book....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee and the name of Shri Jignesh Shah or Shri Sanjay Shah or any other related concern was not appearing therein. The Ld. AR emphasized that the AO had made the addition blindly without bringing any evidence on record and, therefore, the addition as made by the AO should be deleted. Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions in this regard: "1. Vertool Consultancy LLP Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Nadiad, I.T.A. No. 1131/Ahd/2024, (ITAT Ahmedabad), (Order date: 16-05-2025) 2. Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel Vs. ITO, Special Civil Application Nos. 12873 & 12875 OF 2014 (Gujarat High court) (Order date: 13-10-2015) 3. Bhavi Leasing & Finance Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) Baroda, ITA No.994/Ahd/2017, (ITAT Ahmedabad), (Order date: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee had made transaction as fictitious loan (Entry operator beneficiaries) of Jignesh Shah Dissemination amounting to Rs. 4741600/- during the year under consideration. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 4741600/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Therefore it is a fit case for reopening of the assessment by invoking the provision of section 147 of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, it is fit case for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. 4. Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case: In view of above findings, I have reasons to believe that this is a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jignesh Shah or Shri Sanjay Shah. The submission made by the assessee vide letter dated 09th March, 2022 in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act is found to be as under: "3. Fictitious Loan of Jignesh / Sanjay Shah Rs. 4741600/- In respect with the details sought for the loan taken from Jignesh Shah/Sanjay Shah we are replying as under: - a. I have not received any amount from any person named Sanjay or Jignesh Shah. If the Assessing Officer has made any further investigation in the matter or has any other information with him, then the same may please be shared with me so that I can reply to that. In absence of that, the fact of the matter is that there is no transaction between my HUF and Jignesh Shah or Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y entity appearing in the bank statement is Saumya Fincap, to whom certain funds were advanced and on which the assessee had received interest. Considering the materials as brought on record by the assessee in the course of assessment proceeding, it is crystal clear that no loan of Rs. 47,41,600/- was received by the assessee from Shri Jignesh Shah or Shri Sanjay Shah or any entity controlled by them. In view of these facts, the reopening as done by the AO is found to be on the basis of incorrect information. No addition could have been made in the course of assessment without controverting the evidences brought on record by the assessee. There was no material available on record to establish that the assessee had taken loan of Rs. 47,41,60....