TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 2085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 26,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act dated 27.03.2022 on account of unsecured loan received by the appellant from M/s Frank Mercantile Private Limited which was treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE, though the appellant had duly discharged its onus by submitting all the relevant documentary evidences to prove identity and creditworthiness of the lender company and genuineness of the transactions. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on account of unsecured loan and interest thereon without there being any evidence of cash paid at the time of receipt of alleged nongenuine unsecured loan and without there being any evidence of cash received at the time of payment of interest /repayment of alleged non-genuine unsecured loan from/to the company. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 28,59,858/- on account of unsecured loan relying upon the inquiries conducted by the DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata and statements recorded in the course of such inquiry in relation to M/s Frank Mercantile Private Limited, without providing the copy of investigation repo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax (Appeals) erred in not treating the reopening of assessment as bad-in-law since the re-opening was entirely based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind on the part of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not quashing the assessment order and deleting the addition made even when the Ld. Assessing Officer did not follow the basic principles of natural justice by (i) supplying the appellant with materials collected at its back, (ii) supplying copies of all relevant statements of third parties, (iii) supplying copies of reports of Investigation and (iv) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact assessment was completed under section 147. Notice under section 148 dated 27.03.2021 was issued beyond six years from the end of relevant assessment year. The assessing officer issued such notice after substitution of sections 147 to 151 by Finance Act, 2021. After amendment / substitution of sections 147 to 151, notice under section 148 beyond three years from the end relevant assessment year is not permissible; unless the income escaped is more than Rs. 50.00 lacs. Admittedly, the alleged escapement of income is sonly of Rs. 26.00 lacs, which is less than 50.00 lacs. Thus, the notice under section 148 is invalid, hence, all the action initiated on the basis of such notice is void-ab initio. The ld. AR further submits that after the....