SHYAM ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year
2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deciding the appeal ex-parte which is gross violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,14,25,840/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of interest on unsecured loan of Rs.8,96,398/-.
Assessment Year: 2017-18
5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act.
6. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.”
3. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee filed return of income on 13.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.2,47,870/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason of “higher turnover reported in Service Tax Return as compared to Income Tax Return, large squared up loans during the year and real estate business with high closing stock”. After issuance of statutory notice, the assessee furnished details of unsecured loans, confirmations,
PAN, ITR, Bank statement of all the parties from whom loans were accepted during the year to prove their genuineness, existence and creditworthiness. The Assessing
Officer observed that the details filed by the assessee are not submitted properly/fully and thus the Assessing Officer observed that the lenders were giving accommodation entries to the assessee from its sister concerns i.e. Murlidhar Buildcon and Murlidhar
Corporation. They are receiving credit entries from these concerns just before lending of loan to the assessee in the form of unsecured loan. The assessment was completed thereby treating the unsecured loan of Rs.1,14,25,840/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and further the interest expense incurred on loan to the tune of Rs.8,96,398/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filled appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and in fact all the evidences were before the Assessing Officer and the additional evidences as stated in paragraph no.5.2 by the CIT(A) was already before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). The assessee has not received proper opportunity to plead
Assessment Year: 2017-18
PBN/*
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Copies to:
(1)
The appellant
(2)
The respondent

(3)
CIT

(4)
CIT(A)

(5)
Departmental Representative

(6)
Guard File

By order
UE COPY