P & Y Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. ITO

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1974 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M. & PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. P & Y Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. ITO ITA No. 3685/Mum/2023 12 April, 2024 Assessee by: Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Revenue by: H M Bhatt, Sr. DR ORDER *Prashant Maharishi, A.M.* ITA No. 3685/MUM/2023 is filled by P and Y Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2015-16 against the appellant order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)) dated 15-9-2023, wherein the appeal filled by the assessee against assessment year passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (ld Assessing officer), was dismissed. 2. The assessee aggrieved with the same has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the validity of notice under section. 148, though had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of escapement of income; 2. ON facts and circumstance of the case and in law, Learned. Commissioner (Appeals), on ignoring the direct evidences, erred in confirming the addition under section. 68 of Rs.1,00,00,000, though the appellant had proved the identity and credit worthiness of the lender and genuineness of short term loan received from M/s. Sanwaria Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd; 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 under a serious mistaken belief that the appellant had agreed with the addition proposed under section 68, irrespective of the fact that the appellant had never admitted of any such addition; 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), before sustaining the addition under section 68 of loan received of Rs. 1,00,00,000, erred seriously in brushing aside the understated vital facts, being; (a) The exhaustive documentary evidences, being Ledger, Confirmation, PAN, CIN, Own bank statement, TDS certificate, Income Tax return, bank statement and balance sheet of lender and TDS certificate for interest payment to prove the identity, genuineness and credit-worthiness of the lender had not been disproved; (b) The bank statements disclosing the repayment of entire loan made in subsequent year is filed on record; (c) The appellant had made the payment of interest after deducting the TDS under section 194A of the Act; d) The Learned. Assessing Officer did not carry any investigation and did not issue the notice under section. 133(6) /131 to disprove the loan transactions. 3. Brief fact shows that (i) Assessee is a company engaged in the business of ship chartering and trading of steel products. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1974 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH

VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M. & PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M.

P & Y Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. ITO

ITA No. 3685/Mum/2023

12 April, 2024

Assessee by: Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR

Revenue by: H M Bhatt, Sr. DR

ORDER

Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

ITA No. 3685/MUM/2023 is filled by P and Y Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2015-16 against the appellant order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)) dated 15-9-2023, wherein the appeal filled by the assessee against assessment year passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (ld Assessing officer), was dismissed.

2. The assessee aggrieved with the same has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the validity of notice under section. 148, though had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of escapement of income;

2. ON facts and circumstance of the case and in law, Learned. Commissioner (Appeals), on ignoring the direct evidences, erred in confirming the addition under section. 68 of Rs.1,00,00,000, though the appellant had proved the identity and credit worthiness of the lender and genuineness of short term loan received from M/s. Sanwaria Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd;

3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 under a serious mistaken belief that the appellant had agreed with the addition proposed under section 68, irrespective of the fact that the appellant had never admitted of any such addition;

4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), before sustaining the addition under section 68 of loan received of Rs. 1,00,00,000, erred seriously in brushing aside the understated vital facts, being;

(a) The exhaustive documentary evidences, being Ledger, Confirmation, PAN, CIN, Own bank statement, TDS certificate, Income Tax return, bank statement and balance sheet of lender and TDS certificate for interest payment to prove the identity, genuineness and credit-worthiness of the lender had not been disproved;

(b) The bank statements disclosing the repayment of entire loan made in subsequent year is filed on record;

(c) The appellant had made the payment of interest after deducting the TDS under section 194A of the Act; d) The Learned. Assessing Officer did not carry any investigation and did not issue the notice under section. 133(6) /131 to disprove the loan transactions.

3. Brief fact shows that

(i) Assessee is a company engaged in the business of ship chartering and trading of steel products.