TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') dated 30.09.2022 for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the Real Estate business and filed its return of income on 10.02.2021 declaring loss of Rs. 35,55,78,301/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the AO observed that during the year under appeal assessee has received loans of Rs. 12,42,25,000/- from three companies and since the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties, addition was made u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act for the loan received during the year of Rs. 12,42,25,000/-. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order which is not digitally signed, in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018, mandating digital signature for orders passed through e-Proceedings, rendering the impugned assessment order invalid and unenforceable in law. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or thereafter, as may be deemed necessary in the interest of justice." 5. All the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are with respect to the additions of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), therefore, they are taken together for consideration. 6. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee has discharged his onus casted upon its u/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of the lender company was examined and after examination of the same, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition, therefore, he requested for the confirmation of the addition so made in the hands of the assessee company. 8. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that while confirming the addition, it is observed at page 35 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), that in the case of group concern of assessee namely, M/s ACE Infractity Developers Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2019-20 addition made on account of loan taken from M/s Sundram Consultants Pvt. Ltd. was confirmed. As per ld. AR, it is sole basis for confirming the addition in the hands of the assessee in present appeal. It is observed that the appeal in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the fact that a coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Jajoo Rashmi Refractories Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle04, Jaipur (2020) (2) TMI 424, order dated 07.02.2020, has given a finding that M/s Sundram Consultants Pvt. Ltd. is a genuine and creditworthy company. In this context, it was also pointed out before us by the Ld. Counsel that the very same entity M/s Sundram Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has been accepted as a genuine lender in the case of appellant's sister concern M/s Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. wherein unsecured loan aggregating to Rs. 32 crores were advanced during AY 2019-20 and no addition of the same was made. 4.5 On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the Ld. tax authorities ....