TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing fully and properly the explanations furnished and the evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned addition. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not adjudicating specifically the validity of initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Since the condition precedent for valid reopening u/s.147 are not satisfied, the impugned notice u/s 148 was wholly illegal and unlawful. The appellant has raised detailed objection in reply given 03/02/2022. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the credit in bank account amounting to Rs. 19,32,00,000/- as unexplained and thereby making addition of Rs. 19,32,00,000/- u/s. 69A. The appellant had fully discharged the burden cast upon her to prove the impugned credits by producing the required evidence and even confirmation by the creditors in response to the inquiry u/s.133(6) made by AO. 3.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming addition of Rs 19,32,00,000/- u/s 69A of Act though all relevant document, evidence, ITR, Bank statement etc.. were submitted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tailed reply with evidence on 21/03/2022 and 22/03/2022. However, the AO has rejected the same mainly on the ground that neither the assessee nor the creditors provided documentary evidence regarding source of credit entries in their bank accounts, and the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of the transactions, proof of identity of the creditors and their credit worthiness, though the source were explained upto 4th level and confirmations, Income Tax Return, details of source of respective creditors, etc. was provided. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,32,00,000/- as unexplained credit u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the first legal ground of appeal relates to the validity of reopening under the old regime of Sec. 147. The AO had issued notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2021 and furnished gist of the reasons alongwith notice u/s 143(2) dtd. 19.01.2022 (page-8 of PB). The AO has recorded that as per the information on insight portal, the appellant was found to have made high value transactions in cash of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submission with documents, chart and case law etc. were furnished (page 39 to 51) wherein it was pointed out that in respect of the earlier notices of hearing, detailed explanation with immediate source and the ultimate source of the impugned loans was given along with copies of bank statement, confirmation, Ack of ITR etc. (See page - 118 to 121). * When the CIT(A) asked, even the purpose of borrowings was duly explained in as much as, the group consisting of family members of three parties who were holding huge land bank had decided to enter into development agreement for the township project. (page 116-117). * As regards the contention of smallness of income compared to the loan amount it was explained from the record of the said party by a chart and other documents (page 164 and onwards). Refer to Smt.Nidhi Rani v ITO (ITA No.3323/Del/2023 DTD. 19.12.2025). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.71 of 2015 dated 12.08.2015 has held as under:- "The sole basis for the Revenue to doubt their creditworthiness was the low income as reflected in their return of income. It was observed by the ITAT that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). Thus the claim regarding receipt of the money as well as the discloser of the same for taxation purpose is not proved as no such evidence have been furnished regarding such claim. Any agreement regarding receipt of advance from various companies as per claim and distribution of the same to the family-members of the Bagadia family has also not been furnished. As a result the point raised by the Ld AO regarding creditworthiness and source of money of the family members which the appellant tried to explain and prove is not at all proved in absence of sufficient relevant documentary evidence(s). However the confirmations and details of banking transactions uploaded show that there is truth in the claim of the assessee that there was to and fro movement of funds with the family member(s)and the total sum cannot be taken as the amount of remittance. Secondly, it is seen from the bank statement that there are credit entries relating to redemption proceeds of various mutual funds e.g., Morgan Stanley, Raligare Invesco. Pinebridge India Liquidity etc as well as repayment of loans about which the Ld AO has not made any comment regarding any kind of either queries or verification made and ....