MANGALDEEP MULTISTATE URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment by issue of notice u/s 148, which is bad-in-law, illegal and otherwise void for want of jurisdiction.

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the assessment order without providing the copy of reasons recorded before reopening of assessment.

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition by relying on the statements of various persons without providing the copy of the same thus grossly violating the principles of natural justice.

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not appreciating the fact none of the persons whose statements have been relied upon have ever admitted to any involvement of Society in accepting alleged dubious cash deposit.

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in holding that the assessee has not maintained proper KYC documents of the depositors when considering the volume of customers, the assessee has already submitted the KYC documents of two percent of the total customers and has shown his willingness to produce KYC documents of all the customers before AO.

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in applying the provisions of section 68 of the Act, when said provisions are not applicable to the facts of appellant’s case.

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition merely on suspicion, without appreciating the core functions of the society and by overlooking the Bye laws of the society.

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not allowing proper opportunity of being heard by not allowing the assessee the basic right to offer justification and production of records of KYC of all the members of the society.

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 489,20,90,224/- by holding the same as unexplained cash deposits ignoring the fact that such deposit was received by assessee for facilitating the RTGS transaction and also that Rs. 489,20,90,224/- additions set aside by Hon ITAT already for fresh assessment .

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 14,54,00,000.00/- on account of unexplained cash credit and Rs. 29,08,000.00 alleged commission income, when the said income is actually RTGS charges, which has been duly offered to tax by the society.

The appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify or substitute any ground or grounds and to add any new ground / (s) as may be necessary.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out repeatedly. From the case records as per the report, we noticed that summons in this case were sent by the Registry through speed post as well as email, on the address supplied by the assessee on Form -36. Therefore, drawing an

On the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the Court is ready with the arguments; therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

As per the facts of the case, search and seizure action had taken place in the cases of third parties, which revealed that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries from bogus entities, specifically M/s. Neelkanth and M/s. Vaibhav Enterprises. Based on this information, and after verification of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 13.39 crores which remained unexplained, the AO reopened the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 14,54,00,000 under section 68 of the Income-tax Act as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 29,08,000 as commission under section 69C of the Income-tax Act.

Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), considering the documents placed on record and the facts of the case, upheld the order of the AO. The operative portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereinbelow:

Even before us, the assessee has not filed any supporting documents or placed on record any submissions to rebut the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee and uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.