PREMITABEN HARILAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 20, , MUMBAI

1 Premilaben Harilal Thakkar Vs. Pr.CIT-20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A.Y. 2015-16) Premilaben Harilal Vs. Pr.CIT-20 Thakkar, 12/29, Room No.418, 4th Floor, Navjivan Society, Piramal Chamber, Lal Lamington Road, Baug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AERPT3405P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Riddhi Mishra Date of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM):

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT-20, Mumbai which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “a On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, M.C.20, Mumbai, hereinafter referred to as the ld PCIT 20 has erred in Passing the Order u/s 263 stating that the assessment proceeding was completed by the AO, without verifying the genuineness of unsecured loans taken by the assessee. The Order was passed without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already 2 Premilaben Harilal Thakkar Vs. Pr.CIT-20 submitted all documents required by the AO, and the AO had closed the proceedings only after verifying the genuineness of all the transactions b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said order passed u/s 263 is null & void as the said issue was discussed at the time of Assessment proceedings & assessment order was passed after application of mind on the said issue by the Id Assessing Officer, Ward-20(2)(5) c. All the Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to each other. d. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, and amend the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2. This case was listed for hearing for 8 times but neither anybody attended from the side of the assessee nor submitted any written submission, therefore, case of the assessee is adjudicated after taking into consideration the material on record and argument of ld. D.R.

3. Fact in brief is that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 29.11.2017 declaring nil income as per return of income. Subsequently, the ld. Pr.CIT after verification of the assessment record observed that A.O has not verified genuineness of the loan of Rs.4,35,00,000/- taken from Shri Shantilal J. Soparilal and Rs. 1 crore taken by the assessee from Smt. Kusumben Shantilal Jataniya. In response to notice u/s 263 of the Act the assessee submitted by letter dated 08.02.2001 to the Pr.CIT a copy of Income Tax Return of Smt. Kusumben Jataniya along with copy of assessee’s ledger account in her books and copy of ledger of Kusumben in the assessee’s book. Thereafter, on perusal of material available in the assessment record the ld. Pr.CIT stated that the submission made by the assessee were neither called by the A.O nor the assessee had filed it before the A.O. During the course of assessment proceedings A.O has not made any verification on the issue of huge unsecured loan obtained by the assessee in respect of the fact that assessee was having only income from other sources to the amount of Rs.46,124/-. Therefore, the ld. Pr.CIT held that the