SAVITA HEMANT RATHOD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), SURAT

The assessee, in this appeal, has taken following grounds of appeal: “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [here-in- after referred to as Ld. CIT(Appeals)] was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in confirming the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the LT. Act, 1961 which is incomplete and also bad on facts. 2.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in by accepting Savita Hemant Rathod vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 2 the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of loan treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the impugned order of the Assessing Officer (AO) to submit that, in this case, the assessment of the assessee was reopened by the AO on the ground that during the assessment proceedings in the case of one M/s.Jaymangal Realities, it was found that the said assessee had accepted unsecured loans from various persons and the name of the assessee also figured therein and it was shown that the assessee had advanced an unsecured loan of Rs.8,00,000/- to the said party. On the basis of said information, the assessment of the assessee was reopened by the AO.

The sole information, that the assessee had advanced an amount of Rs.8 lakhs as unsecured loan, cannot be said to be an information on the basis of which the AO can form the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Reopening of the assessment in this case is, therefore, bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed u/s.147 of the Act is hereby quashed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.