RAJASTHAN METALS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 28(4), NEW DELHI

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed herein seeks to reverse learned lower authorities’ action treating it’s unsecured loans received during the year amounting to Rs.3,15,66,210/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 in the course of assessment framed on 28.12.2017 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Learned counsel has Rajasthan Metals 2 raised the assessee’s twin folded arguments. He firstly submits that the assessee had filed all the relevant details and evidence of the concerned parties M/s Amrti Enterprises, Soham Trading Co., Shiv Shakti Metals and Manglam International, involving varying sums along with all the documents thereof, before the lower authorities. Learned counsel second plea is that there is no indication in the lower authorities findings as to how and in what manner, section 143(2) notice had been issued and served to the assessee.

We find no merit in either of the assessee’s foregoing twin arguments. Learned departmental representative takes us to the CIT(A)’s discussion at page 5 in para 3.2 that the assessee’s partners Sh. Sharad Garg and Kishan Pal Singh had made it clear that they did not have any supportive evidence in explaining genuineness of the impugned unsecured loans as the said details had been kept with one Mr. Pankaj Jain (in jail). Ms. Hansra next refers to an alleged letter to the police authorities dated 04.08.2018 to this effect. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that mere filing of documentary evidence not proving genuineness of the impugned unsecured loans, would not amount to the assessee having discharged it’s onus in light of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161. More so, when the Rajasthan Metals 3 assessee’s twin partners having equal share had disowned the same before learned departmental authorities. We thus, see no merit in the assessee’s instant and foremost argument which is hereby rejected in very terms.

Next comes the assessee’s second argument that there is no indication about the mode/manner of actual service of section 143(2) notice. A perusal of the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 in para itself suggests that the learned assessing authority has issued it’s corresponding section 143(2) notice dated 30.08.2016 to the assessee. That being the case, it is the assessee’s onus only to plead and prove any illegality therein which could be held as to have vitiated the assessment itself. We thus reject the assessee’s instant latter argument as well.

No other argument has been pressed before us during the course of hearing. 7. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/05/2025. (Naveen Chandra) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member