TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 amounting to Rs. 60,28,000/-. Notices u/s.133(6) were issued to the concerned parties/persons which were returned unserved by the postal authorities. The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act and issued notice u/s.148 on 13.10.2015 which was duly served on the assessee on the same day. However, the assessee did not file any return in response to the same. Subsequently, another notice was issued in response to which the assessee filed a letter enclosing the copy of Tax Audit Report u/s.44AB along with return, computation of income, balance sheet and profit and loss account etc. The AO, on verification of the submission, found that assessee has not filed copy of original return of income or return of income in response to notice us/.148 of the Act. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the assessment should not be completed u/s.144 of the I.T. Act. 4. Subsequently, the assessee filed certain details in respect of various loan creditors. After considering the various details furnished by the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs. 60,28,000/- in respect of 14 parties by observing as under : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir bank statements etc. In the light of the various judicial decisions cited supra, I am of the view that except for the 3 loan creditors listed above, all other loan creditors are proved and therefore cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. To sum up, out of the total addition of Rs. 60,28,000 made by the AO u/s.68, I uphold the addition to the extent of Rs. 16,80,000. Ground 2 is partly allowed." 6. Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the addition of Rs. 16,80,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) in respect of the 3 loan creditors. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of the 03 loan creditors assessee has filed copies of income-tax returns, bank statements etc. and therefore merely nonservice of notices u/s.133(6) cannot be a ground for sustaining the addition especially when the ld.CIT(A) in the remaining 11 cases has deleted the addition on the basis of same documents. Further, the amounts have been repaid in subsequent years, the AO has not disallowed the interest paid to them, therefore, under these circumstances, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Rs. 5 lakhs on 11.03.2010 by cheque to J.K.Enterprises. The transaction is related to Α.Υ. 2010-11. Amrutlal R. Sadani Returned income Rs. 1,68,540/- Unsecured loan given Rs. 5,60,000/- 560000 First notice dt.7.11.2014 returned unserved. Another notice dt.08.01.2015 sent on new address given by assessee also returned unserved by post with remark 'left'. Again a notice dt. 18.02.2015 on another address provided, also returned unserved. The assessee Usha Shah has furnished copy of ITR and bank account statement of Amrutlal Sadani from the same it is seen that he has given loan of Rs. 5 lakhs on 26.02.2010 by cheque to J.K.Enterprises. The transaction is related to Α.Υ. 2010-11. Sureshkumar D. Mehta Returned income Rs. 2,09,690/- Unsecured loan given Rs. 5,60,000/- 560000 A notice dt.7.11.2014 was issued but no reply filed. Assessee vide this office letter dt.29.12.2014 was apprised of this fact. A further notice u/s 133(6) was issued on 08.01.2015 at the new address provided by the assessee but the same also returned unserved. Thus, the unsecured loan of Rs. 5,60,000/- remains not proved. The assessee Usha Shah ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of PCIT Vs. Bairagra Builders (P) Ltd. (supra). In that case, the AO had made the addition on account unsecured loan taken by the assessee from two companies and had submitted all evidences to substantiate the loan including confirmation from creditors and loan was taken and repaid through banking channels. The Hon'ble High Court held that since the assessee has taken unsecured loans and submitted all evidences to substantiate loan including confirmation from creditors and loan was taken and repaid through banking channels the AO was not justified in treating such unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition was upheld. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under : "4. The record shows that the disallowance of the unsecured loans of Rs. 40 Lakhs was based on search and seizure action conducted on one Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain during which he is said to have recorded a statement that he had provided accommodation entries to a few beneficiaries, one of which is the Respondent. The said statement was retracted after the search and seizure was completed. The statement recorded during the search ....