TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as "the Act"]. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2015-16 on 21.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 42,53,750/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO had reopened the case on the basis of information that the assessee has taken accommodation entry of Rs. 17,00,000/- in the form of bogus loan from three entities. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. In the course of assessment proceeding, the AO was not satisfied about the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions. Therefore, the loan of Rs. 17,00,000/- was treated as unexp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case, the entire reopening of assessment is completely illegal and unjustifiable and therefore the Assessment order passed u/s 147 rws 143(3) of the Act be quashed and set aside accordingly. The same be held now. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made of Rs. 17,17,000/-on account of accommodation entry transactions It is submitted that the loan taken and repaid by appellant from Champaklal Shah, Ramesh Shah & Meha Shah are completely genuine and through banking channel and Identify, Genuineness and creditworthiness of all three parties have been duly established before lower authorities. It is therefore submitted the entire addition made blindly, without appreciating evidences filed on record an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... connected with Sadhani brothers. According to the Ld. AR, in the absence of any nexus of the three loan creditors with Sadhani brothers, the reopening made by the AO was based on incorrect facts. 6. On the other hand, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, the Ld. SR-DR submitted that the Sadhani brothers in their statements had admitted that accommodation entries were provided in the name of 873 persons/entities, whose Income-tax files and the bank accounts were managed by them. Thus, there was a clear nexus between the information provided by Sadhani brothers and the reopening of the case in the present case. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. Pursuant to the search carried out in the case of Sadhani brothers, inquiries were carried out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir copy of ITR and bank statement in order to establish the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of transactions. He explained that the case of the assessee for the next year i.e. A. Y. 2016-17 was also reopened to examine the loan taken from the same three creditors, but the assessment was completed without making any addition. Therefore, the AO was not correct in treating the loan taken by the assessee from the same three persons in the current year as bogus. The LD. AR further submitted that the loan taken from the three persons was duly repaid to them in the next year. Under the circumstances, the loans could not have been treated as bogus and accommodation entry. 9. Per contra, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, the ld. SR-DR supported ....