Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs Asst. CIT, Circle 10(3)(1)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessment was framed on the Appellant under Section 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 20.12.2017. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated against the Appellant which culminated into the Assessment Order, dated 28/03/2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act whereby addition of INR 24,06,254/- was made in the hands of the Appellant holding the same to be undisclosed interest income of the Appellant. Further, an addition of INR 16,46,000/- was made in the hands of Appellant on the ground that the as per loan confirmation received from M/s. Servotech India Ltd. the Closing Balance was INR.19,71,432/- whereas as per the Balance Sheet of the Appellant the closing was INR.36,17,432/-. Thus, the difference of INR 16,46,000/- was also considered by the Assessing Officer to be undisclosed income of the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant went in appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 28/03/2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings as well as aggregate addition of INR.40,52,254/- made in the hands of the Appellant. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 19/04/2024. The Appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal on the ground reproduced in paragraph 2 above.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the re-opening of the assessment u/s.147 done by the AO in contravention of the provision of law.
• 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in not quashing the order u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 passed by the AO in total contravention of the provisions of law.
• 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the unjustified and unwarranted addition of Rs 24,06,254/- made to the declared income.
• 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the unjustified and unwarranted addition of Rs.16,46,000/- to the declared income.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Panorama Studios Private Limited

  Mumbai bench

• Nareshkumar Punjiram Patel vs DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

  Ahmedabad bench

• Mohammed Salim Noorbhai Shaikh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Arifkhan Munirkhan Pathan vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• M/S JHS Sevendgaard Laboratories Ltd. Vs. DCIT

  DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Smt. Najmunnisha Alibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Shri Raj Kumar Kalwani vs The DCIT, Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur

  Jaipur bench