Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2026 (5) TMI 1456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Years 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 6,08,040/-. The assessee was getting partnership income from two firm. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act accepting the returned of income. The assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee received unsecured loans from Navnitbhai Dhanjibhai Patel (HUF), Juvenile Solutions Private Limited and Rajan Pharma Science Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 3,24,92,609/-, which were found to be not genuine. Therefo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The learned CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the addition under section 69A instead of examining it under section 68 of the Act. The impugned amount represented a loan transaction through banking channels and was recorded in the regular books of accounts, thereby taking the transaction outside the purview of section 69A. 3. The authorities below have adopted a mechanical and presumptive approach by branding the transaction as an "engineered transaction" without bringing any cogent material or evidence on record to support such an allegation. 4. The lower authorities erred in placing the onus on the appellant to prove the "source of source", which is not warranted in law, especially where the primary onus regardin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd perused the materials available on record. The assessee has fully discharged the primary onus cast upon him by filing following documents which are available in the paper book, as follows: "a) Confirmation of Lender (PB 58-60) b) PAN of lender (PB 61) c) Bank statement of lender evidencing RTGS transfer (PB 62-69). d) ITR of Lender (PB 70 of Paper Book) e) Balance Sheet of lender (PB 92). f) Break-up of loans showing appellant as borrower (PB 93). g) Ledger account from appellant's books, duly confirmed (PB 29). h) Compliance by lender to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act (PB 39-40) i) Repayment evidence along with corresponding Bank Statemen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med assessment under section 143(3) wherein he made addition of Rs. 1.45 crore under section 68 on ground that loan taken from one 'IA' was not explained satisfactorily - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with respect to genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of MA' and, therefore, deleted addition - It was found that total loan of Rs. 1.60 crore was advanced to assessee, out of which Rs.15 lakh was repaid - Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1.45 crore remained outstanding to be paid to 'IA' - Balance loan amount was repaid by assessee in immediately next financial year - Whether when Department had accepted same, addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee] 7.1 In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ein the department head accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year to be correct. We take into account all these facts and judicial precedents to affirm CIT(A)'s findings under challenge deleting the impugned addition. This first substantive ground is accordingly declined." 7.2 In the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) wherein it has been held as follows: "Once primary documents are given, onus shifts from assessee to revenue. In absence of anything contradictory brought on the table, it wouldn't be fair to confirm addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Gujarat High Court went on to the extent of confirming that even if creditors didn't turn up on issue of summons, even then, the transaction can&#39....