TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after considering all the entries available on record, the reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act was merely a change of opinion and directly in conflict with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in having upheld the reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 27.11.2018 and addition of Rs. 50,00,000/-on the alleged ground of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in spite of the fact that in the Remand Report dated 19.6.2024 it has been fairly admitted that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act after examining the details of unsecured loan, confirmation, books of account etc. filed by the assessee and hence the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act on a mere change of opinion is devoid of legally sustainable merits. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in having accepted the AO's clarification in the remand report that the credit comprised of Rs. 25,00,000/- from Booster Trading Pvt. Ltd. in place of completely new name of Comfort Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. was a typographical error and did not impeach the en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the assessment year under appeal filed on 24.09.2011 declaring a total Income of Rs. 1,14,79,620/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 04.03.2014 assessing the total income of Rs. 1,21,83,084/-. All the required details and evidences in support of the ROI as asked for vide notice u /s.142(1) and other show cause notices were submitted and on verification of the same, the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was completed. The ROI was originally assessed under section 143(3) on 04.03.2014. The reassessment for AY 2011-12 was initiated on 27.03.2018 based on Investigation Wing inputs alleging accommodation-entry routing, culminating in an assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.11.2018 making an addition of Rs. 50,00,000 under section 68. Reasons recorded identified Rs. 25,00,000 each credited in the assessee's books from Primary Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and another Kolkata-based entry-operator group entity, with the Investigation Wing tracing initial large cash deposits in feeder entities and subsequent layering through shell companies with nil turnover and non-compliant directors. During reassessment, notices under sections 142(1)/143(2) and a show-cause notice wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000 from Comfort Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., explaining that the name "Booster Trading Pvt. Ltd." appearing earlier was an inadvertent misdescription, which does not impeach the entry-layering findings. Reopening is upheld and the allegation of violation of natural justice fails, as reasons were furnished, notices were issued, Investigation Wing material existed, and the minor misdescription is cured by remand clarification without affecting the core satisfaction. In view of the Above the grounds of Appeal No.1 to 3 of the Appellant is here by dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 4 & 5: In this ground the Appellant contended the Addition of Rs. 50,00,000 made by AO u/s 68 (two loans of Rs. 25,00,000 each). The Appellant acknowledges a loan of Rs. 25,00,000 from Primary Merchants Pvt. Ltd., supported by a bank entry dated 29.01.2011, confirmation, and ITR acknowledgement of the lender, while denying any transaction with "Booster Trading Pvt. Ltd.". The AO on re-verification confirmed that the second credit of Rs. 25,00,000 was from Comfort Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. on 29.01.2011, and that both loan credits stood examined in the earlier 143(3) and existed in the Appellant's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iance during reassessment prevented the AO from verifying capacity/genuineness amidst adverse Investigation Wing material, thereby failing section 68's burden. The remand clarification substituting Comfort Merchandise for the earlier misnamed "Booster Trading" preserves the identity of the second impugned credit on the same date and amount, and does not prejudice the Appellant, who had full opportunity in appeal to rebut capacity/genuineness but did not furnish cogent lender-side evidence beyond internal records. In view of Precision Finance, Shankar Industries, and considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel, the Appellant has not discharged the onus to prove creditworthiness and genuineness for both Rs. 25,00,000 credits when read against Investigation Wing findings and non-compliance, and the section 68 addition of Rs. 50,00,000 is sustained. The ground of Appeal No.4 & 5 of the Appellant Is here by Dismissed. 8. In the result Appeal of the Appellant is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reopened. It was also stated that the bank statements in support of the reasons recorded were not provided to the assessee. It was requested that the addition as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may be deleted as the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the same as typographical error and the reasons recorded cannot be modified/improved upon/supplemented as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bombay)/[2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bombay)/[2004] 190 CTR 166 (Bombay)[25-02-2004]. It was also stated that it has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sant Lal [2020] 118 taxmann.com 432 (Delhi)/[2020] 273 Taxman 551 (Delhi)/[2020] 423 ITR 1 (Delhi)[11-03-2020] that no addition can be made only on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing. 6. The Ld. DR stated that the same plea was taken before the Ld. CIT(A) who has disposed of the same as per his finding on page 34 of the appeal order. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 7. We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the documents filed. The Ld. CIT(A) had ca....