TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 26,00,000/- as against the addition of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act in respect of unexplained cash credit observing that the AO has not proved that the funds received as unsecured loans from the said parties actually came from the appellant and when all other credentials of the said parties are produced by the assessee despite the undisputed facts regarding receipt of accommodation entries mentioned by AO at para 5.1 and 5.2 of assessment order including the fact that during the course of survey, 150 lenders have filed their affidavit stating that their income tax files were used by the Sadhani Brothers to provide accommodation entries inform of bogus unsecured loan and also Shri Darshan P. Sadhani in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) and 131(1A) of the Act has accepted that his firm through his concerns have provided accommodation entries to various concerns. 2) In addition to the ground No.1, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 26,00,000/- as against addition of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- despite the fact that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirming the action of the learned AO in making an addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, in respect of unsecured loans received during the year under consideration by treating them as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, which is absolutely erroneous and incorrect, requiring outright annulment. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), has grossly erred in partly confirming the action of the learned AO in making addition of Rs. 13,000/-, alleging payment of commission @ 0.50% out of books in respect of unsecured loans availed during the year, purely on guesswork, conjectures, surmises and without any evidence, which needs to be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify in any or all the above grounds of appeal, if necessary, on the basis of submissions to be made at the time of personal hearing." 4. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 31.12.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 6,62,990/-. Thereafter, information was received from Investigation Wing, Surat that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 and survey u/s 133A of the Act were car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant relied on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) and PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Guj) and submitted that once repayment of loan is accepted by the Department, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. The submission of the assessee is reproduced at pages 14 to 21 of the appellate order. The decision of the CIT(A) on addition of unsecured loan is at para-7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- on the ground that these loans were repaid in FYs 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20, which has not been disputed by AO. He sustained the remaining unsecured loan of Rs. 26,00,000/- as these loans were not paid even after seven years. The CIT(A) allowed proportionate relief on commission expenses and sustained addition of Rs. 13,000/- as against addition of Rs. 1,13,500/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) both Revenue and assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue strongly supported the order of AO. He submitted that information regarding bogus loan from 38 parties were received due to search....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed all requisites details to prove identity and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of transactions. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions in cases of (i) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders - SLP(C) 9155 of 201 (SC) (ii) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 30 (Guj), (iii) PCIT vs. D&H Enterprise 72 taxmann.com 91 (Guj), (iv) CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd. 42 Taxmann.Com 473 (Guj), (v) ITO vs. Shanti Enterprise 71 taxmann.com 275 (Guj), (vi) CIT vs. Ranachhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj), (vii) Nemi Chand KothARI VS. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Guj) and (viii) CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 221 CTR 511 (Del). The Ld. AR further submitted that assessee is not required to prove the source of the source as the amendment in this regard was brought in the Statute by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2023. He also submitted that assessee has repaid loan of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- of 26 parties long before the assessment was made and notice u/s 148 was issued. Only Rs. 26,00,000/- from three parties were outstanding. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted addition in respect of repaid loans which is supported by decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Aya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the appellant has again raised similar ground. It is contended by the Ld. AR of the assessee that assessee can raise legal ground before the Tribunal as there cannot be estoppel against raising of a legal ground even if assessee has waived his right before the lower authorities. We agree with the view of the Ld. AR of the assessee. The conditions prescribed for initiating re-assessment proceedings are mandatory and there could never be waiver of the mandatory provisions. There would be no question of waiver or acquiescence or estoppel or bar of res judicata being attracted because the order in such a case would lack inherent jurisdiction and would be a void order or a nullity. Hence, we admit the ground raised by the appellant. Since, the jurisdictional ground has not been adjudicated on merit and dismissed only because it was not pressed by appellant, we set aside the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. This ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground No. 1 to 3 of Revenue's appeal and Ground No.2 of assessee's appeal pertain to addition of Rs. ....