TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 for the AY 2018-19 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), dated 30/04/2021. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm established with the objects of engaging in the business of maintenance of warehouses, transportation, loading / unloading and construction of godowns and factory buildings on EPC Basis. The assessee filed its return of income on 31/08/2018 admitting a total income of (-) Rs. 21,506/- for the AY 2018-19. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny for the following reasons viz., (i) investment / advances / loans and (ii) business loss. Accordingly, statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rated the submissions made before the Ld. AO. Further, the assessee has also made written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC observed from the written submissions of the assessee wherein it was contended that the advance from M/s. Three Seasons Exim Ltd amounting to Rs. 16,23,00,000/- was provided out of the available idle funds and further where the assessee submitted that it has fulfilled the onus U/s. 68 of the Act and hence, the proceedings U/s. 68 of the Act is not tenable and subsequently order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act is unsustainable. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC also found from the submissions made that the assessee has given an advance of Rs. 6,78,00,000/- to Mr. J. Bala Gandhi Raju and Rs. 9,45,00,000/- to Mrs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Grounds No. 1 & 4 are general in nature and need no adjudication. 5. Vide Ground No.3, the only issue contested by the assessee is with respect to the addition of Rs. 16,23,00,000/- made U/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained unsecured loan / advance. On this issue, the Learned Authorized Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that the name of the company, bank statements and the PAN of the company were submitted before the Ld. AO. He further submitted that the transactions originated in the year 2017-18 wherein M/s. Three Seasons Exim Ltd granted material advance to the assessee-firm which was also reflected in the financials of the company which is available at Page No. 87 in Note No.19 - Short Term Loans and Advances. The Ld. AR further sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition can be made U/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative ("Ld. DR") heavily relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The Ld. DR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and pleaded that since the three ingredients necessary for establishing the genuinity of the transactions was not proved by the assessee, the addition made U/s. 68 of the Act by the Ld. AO be upheld. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Since the additional evidence submitted by the assessee is relevant, it is admitted. It is an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted by the Ld. AR we notice that the unsecured loans / advance received by the assessee-firm during the AY 2018-19 have been repaid during the FY 2023-24. Further the Ld.CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal of the company M/s Three Seasons Exim Limited has not made any observation regarding the payment of material advance by the company to the assessee firm. The Revenue has also not brought in any material challenging the material advance amount paid by M/s Three Seasons Exim Ltd to the assessee-firm, except stating that no material is supplied. The only contention of the Revenue is that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was not proved before the Ld. Revenue Authorities, could not be accepted, given th....