TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5 The Appellant prays leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to add, amend, alter any of the Grounds of Appeal." Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee filed its return of income for year under consideration on 08/12/2012, declaring total income of Rs. 9,23,946/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, an information was received from the DGIT (INV) wing Mumbai about the assessee having availed benefit of taking accommodation entries of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. The reasons were recorded and notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 25/03/2019. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 10/04/2019 declaring the total income of Rs. 9,23,950/-. 2.1 The Ld.AO noted that the assessee has obtained unsecured loans from following concerns during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration. Sr. No. Name of the hawala parties Nature of Transaction Bill Amount(RS) 1. Manirattnam Exim Pvt. Ltd. Unsecured Loan 1,10,00,000/- 2. Kingstar Unsecured Loan 15,00,000/- Total 1,25,00,000/- 2.2 The assessee vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act dated 25.03.2019 was issued by the Ld Assessing officer, which was duly served upon the assessee, In response, the assessee filed return on 10/04/2019 declaring total income at Rs. 9,23,950/-. iv) It is seen that the assessee had indulged in taking benefit of accommodation entry of unsecured loan from the following parties: Sr. No. Name of the hawala parties Nature of Transaction Bill Amount(RS) 1. Manirattnam Exim Pvt. Ltd. Unsecured Loan 1,10,00,000/- 2. Kingstar Unsecured Loan 15,00,000/- Total 1,25,00,000/- v) The assessing officer has stated that "During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted loan confirmation of both the loan creditors and photocopies of bank statements of M/s. Manirattnam Exim Pvt. Ltd. highlighting the relevant entries vi) The assessing officer has made the addition stating "the assessee has not been able to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan transactions and thus the said transactions are liable to be disallowed for want of cogent proof and justification, this sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- is deemed to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the company is only Rs 1 Lakhs, total shareholder fund is Rs 5,33,055/-. The appellant assessee has not provided Profit and loss account of the company and it is also pertinent to mention here that the gross total income of the company as per the ITR is Rs 5,03,853/-. The appellant assessee has taken a loan from the company M/s Manirattnam Exim Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs 1,10,00,000/- which is not justified from the above points. x) This appellate authority is in the view that after seeing the Balance sheet and other documents of the company M/s Manirattnam Exim Pvt. Ltd, the creditworthiness of the lenders does not seem so healthy to lend a sum of Rs 1,10,00,000/- to the appellant assessee. xi) Similarly in case of second loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- taken from M/s. Kingstar, the appellant assessee has not provided copy of ITR, Balance Sheet and Profit & loss account, bank Statement and any documentary evidences/proofs of the firm to proof the creditworthiness and genuineness of M/s. Kingstar from which the appellant assessee has taken loan of Rs 15,00,000/-. xii) It is also pertinent to mention here that the Ld. AO also sent notice u/s. 133(6) of the income t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which shows the receipt of a sum or conversion of the notes by the assessee by himself, it is necessary for the assessee to establish, if asked, what the source of that money was and to prove that it did not bear the nature of income. The department is not at this stage required to prove anything. The fact that there was receipt of money or conversion of notes is itself prima facie evidence against the assessee on which the Department can proceed in absence of good explanation.' c. In Manindranath Das v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa, the tax-payer had encased Notes of the value of Rs. 28,600/-, which he contended were his accumulated savings. His explanation was accepted in respect of Rs. 15,000/-, because 15 notes could be traced to a bank, but was rejected in respect of the balance. The Patna High Court pointed out that if an assessee received an amount in the year of account, it was for him to show that the amount so received did not bear the character of income, and the tax-payer in the case had failed to prove this fact in respect of the remaining notes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'The cases involving the encashment of high deno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with confirmation from M/s. Kingstar. He submitted that all this details were already available during the assessment proceedings. However, the same has not been verified by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AR submitted that, merely because there was no response from the loan lenders to the notice issued u/s.136 of the Act, the addition was made in the hands of the assessee as unexplained monies. 5.2 The Ld.AR on identical issues placed reliance on following decision in support of its claim * The decision of co ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of ACIT v. Adhiraj Constructions Pvt Ltd in I.T.A. No. 1410/Mum/2022, C.O. No. 100/Mum/2022) vide order dated 27/12/2022 * The decision of Co ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Nanda Sumemal Jain v. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4) in ITA 2526/Mum/2022 vide order dated 09/03/2023 * The decision of co ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Rajuram Savaji Purohit v. Income-tax Officer reported in [2024] 169 taxmann.com 18. * The decision of co ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of ITO v. Leena Haresh Harde in ITA NO. 6429/MUM/2017 5.3 The Ld.AR further submitted that, assessee has paid interest t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xamination and make the remarks such as was done in that case. 16. In the instant case although the appellant assessed has called upon us to draw an inference that the burden shifted to the revenue in the present case once it was established that the payments were made and repaid by cheque we need not hasten and adopt that view after having given our thought to various issues raised and the decisions cited by Mr.Tralshawalla and finding that on a very fundamental aspect, the revenue was not justified in making addition at the time of reassessment without ion at the time having first given the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the deponent on the statements relied upon by the ACIT. Quite apart from denial of an opportunity of cross examination, the revenue did not even provide the material on the basis of which the department sought to conclude that the loan was a bogus transaction. 17. In our view in the light of the fact that the monies were advanced apparently by the account payee cheque and was repaid vide account payee cheque the least that the revenue should have done was to grant an opportunity to the assessee to meet the case against him by providing....