VALUKKO INFRASTRUSTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 11(3)(2), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds:

IT(A) has upheld the reopening u/s 147
t is submitted that the assessment orde without juri iction, purely on borrowed n law. Hence the order of reassessment up prayed to be quashed in the interest of now.
T(A) has upheld the additions made by th
8 of the Act on account of the credit amou statement amounting to Rs. 2,85,69, at such an addition is made purely on doubt, ignoring/ not appreciating the ev y addition is prayed to be deleted.
re your appellant could file the submissio was taken, without issuing any furth opportunity of being heard via Video C
A) passed the order sustaining the add passed in gross violation of the principle ng mental agony, and stress is prayed to f the Ld. CIT(A) or the Assessing Offic passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is to the provisions of law and facts. It is su held so now.
facts of the case are that th ness of manufacturing and tra work for building and fabricati ration, the assessee filed return g total income at Rs. Nil. Subse ved from the Dy. Director of In credits of Rs.2,85,69,730/- we aintained by the assessee with e which was not explained to t
Officer recorded reasons to beli and issued notice u/s 148 of ukko Infrastructure Ltd.
2
A No. 1034/MUM/2024
of the IT Act er passed by satisfaction, upheld by the f justice. The he Assessing unts reflected
,730/-. It is the basis of vidence filed.
ons for which her notice or Conferencing, ditions made.
es of natural be set aside cer for fresh s bad in law ubmitted that e assessee was ading of steel &
ion work. In the n of income on quently, in view ncome-tax (Inv.), re appearing in Axis Bank Ltd.
he Investigation ieve that income the Income-tax

Act, 1961 (in short ‘
reassessment procee except the copy of th explanation in respec the Assessing Offic
Rs.2,85,69,730/- tre terms of section 68 o
3. On further app notices issued by the nature and source accordingly dismissed
“7. Grounds No the Assessme addition of Rs.
are being take cared to elabor evidence, In th submission by unsatisfactory.
huge amounts has not explai amount had document was those persons w ample opportun documents and onus of provin received by an show either th exempt from ta such proof, the 7.1 The appell given explana summoned by account. Even b and source of wise entries an Volu
ITA

‘the Act’) on 28.03.2018. Durin edings, the assessee did not he bank statement and therefor ct of source and nature of cred cer made addition for cred eating the same as unexplained f the Act.
peal, also the assessee did not e Ld. CIT(A) and file submission of the credit transactions. T d the grounds observing as und o, 1 to 6: In these grounds the appellant has nt Order and income determined after m
2.85,69,730/- and hence, for the sake of br en up together for adjudication, The appella rate on its grounds of appeal raised with co he Assessment Order, the AO carried out exa y the appellant and found it to be incom
To quote from the Assessment Order – ‘in had been credited in the account of the asse ined the nature of the same, The source o been discovered from Bank Pass Book s produced nor the amounts had been confi who were shown to have lent them. Despite b nities, the assesses has failed to produce th d explain the nature and source of amount rec ng the source of a sum of money found to n is on it. If it disputes the liability for tax, it i hat the receipt was not income or that if it w axation under the provisions of the Act. in the Revenue is entitled to treat it as taxable inco lant had, in the first instance, not appeared ation to the Investigation Wing authori them on receipt of information relating to the before the AO the appellant could not explain credits. Merely providing bank statement w nd narration cannot explain the deposits. The ukko Infrastructure Ltd.
3
A No. 1034/MUM/2024
ng the course of file any detail re, in view of no dit transactions, dir amount of d cash credit in t comply to the n to explain the The Ld. CIT(A) der:
challenged making the revity, they ant has not orroborative amined the mplete and the instant sses and it of the said of the No firmed from being given he relevant ceived. The have been is for the to was? it was absence of ome. *
d before or ties when e said bank n the nature with month e AO placed reliance on var
Hon'ble Mumba
Commissioner supra) in his O has been unab of appeal wit submissions w for huge credi investigation,
7.2 In view of anomaly in the mentioned, the the findings of ground of appe made by the A dismissed.”
4. Before us , the containing pages 1 to 5. We have heard r relevant material on Rs.2,85,69,730/- ha the reason of non-com notices issued by the assessee submitted t could not file the sub file the submission transaction if matte circumstances of the justice, we feel it app assessee and therefo restore the matter ba
Volu
ITA rious Court judgements, inducting the judgem ai High Court in the case of Orient trading of Income Tax (reproduced in the Assessm
Order. Even during appellate proceedings, the ble to substantiate its contentions contained th evidence, Mere reference to letters v were made before the AO cannot be taken as e ts in a bank account reported by the Depa f the facts and circumstances of the case e findings of the AO. During appellate proce appellant did not bring anything on record to f the AO, No merit is thus found on the eal and I see no reason to interfere with the AO in this regard. These grounds of appeal ar
Ld. counsel for the assessee file o 142. rival submission of the parties a record. In the case of the asse s been sustained by the Ld. C mpliance on the part of the ass e Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld.
that due to non-service of notice bmission, however, the assesse explaining nature and sourc r is restored back. In view of e case and in the interest of propriate to provide one more op re, we set aside the order of the ack to him for deciding afresh a ukko Infrastructure Ltd.
4
A No. 1034/MUM/2024
ment of the Co. Ltd. v.
ment order e appellant in grounds vide which explanation artment on e, ! see no eedings, as o controvert appellant's e additions re therefore ed a Paper Book and perused the ssee addition of IT(A) mainly for essee of various counsel for the es, the assessee ee was willing to ce of the credit f the facts and the substantial pportunity to the e Ld. CIT(A) and after taking into consideration submis the assessee are allow
6. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (SANDEEP SING
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 01/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Volu
ITA ssions of the assessee. The grou wed for statistical purposes.
the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 01/0
/-
GH KARHAIL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu ukko Infrastructure Ltd.
5
A No. 1034/MUM/2024
unds of appeal of is allowed for 01/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai