TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, (in short 'AO') u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dated 26.12.2018. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. Learned CIT(A) erred in invoking provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Leaned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-. 3. Learned CIT(A) erred initializing the concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 4. Learned CIT(A) has proceeded in re-assessment on wrong factual facts and incorrect information in recorded reasons. 5. The assessee reserves his rights to add, to alter or to amend above ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thereafter the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 12.09.2018 and served to the assessee. The notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, along with the questions was issued on 3.10.2018 and served to the assessee. 5. In response to this notice, the assessee has filed her reply, vide letter dated 05.12.2018, which is reproduced below: "We have already filed the income tax return along with computation of tax. With reference to the copy of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment we would like to submit as under: - As per para-2 and Para -5 you have stated that Rs. 25,00,000/- received from Chancellor Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. In the bank account No. 325110100022362 held with Bank of India, Hospital Road Branch, Jamnagar and yo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erify above facts and let us know so that we can proceed further in the matter." 6. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and stated that while recording the reasons for reopening, there was a typographical error, and there is no mistake in the reasons recorded. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee also submitted further reply before the assessing officer, dated 18.12.2018. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the assessee has taken loan amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- from the Chancellor Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. on 31.03.2011, and the Chancellor Commodeal Pvt. Ltd is a shell company declared by the Government of India. Therefore, the assessing officer ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same nature of transaction is there in the assessment year 2012-13 and the assessing officer, after having examined the accounts of the assessee and documents of the assessee, did not make any addition. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that addition made by the assessing officer may be deleted. 10. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that each year is a separate and distinct assessment year, therefore res judicata does not apply to the income tax proceedings, as each assessment year is treated separately, therefore order passed by the assessing officer in the subsequent year, should not be taken, as a base to delete the addition. The Ld. Sr. DR also stated that assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n taken by the assessee, and duly repaid by her through banking channel, is also to be doubted by the assessing officer, merely because she has taken loan from shell company, as she did not know at the time of taking loan that the said company will be declared as shell company, later on. Thus, at the time of taking the loan, the company was not shell company. We find that the loan was repaid by the assessee through banking channel on or before 31.03.2013 and assessee also furnished affidavits from Directors of lender companies that they have received back their money from the assessee by cheque and it was also confirmed by directors of the company that they have not charged interest on unsecured loan from the assessee due to long term busin....