Narender Kumar Choudhry ORDER
B.R. Baskaran, Member (A)
1. The appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 14.01.2022 passed by Ld CIT(A)-48, Mumbai and they relate to the assessment year 2010-11.
2. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.6.00 crore, being the loans taken by the assessee from Praveen Jain group of companies, u/s 68 of the Act. In the cross objection, the assessee is contesting the validity of addition made in an unabated assessment year in the absence of any incriminating material.
3. The registry has noted that the appeal filed by the revenue is delayed by 53 days. However, we notice that the revenue has filed appeal on 27- 05-2022, i.e., within the limitation period extended suo motu by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, it has to be held that the appeal has been filed by the revenue in time.
4. The registry has also noted that the cross objection filed by the assessee is also time barred by 234 days. It has been explained by the assessee that it did not receive the copy of appeal filed by the revenue and it came to know of the said appeal only when it received notice from the ITAT. Thereafter, the copies of papers filed by the revenue were obtained. It is further submitted that, pursuant to search proceedings, various appeals were pending at various stages. Further, one of the key persons Shri Jasmin K Ajmera passed away. Hence proper attention could not be given to this appeal by the CA and directors. At the time of preparation of appeal filed by the revenue, it was opined that the issue of jurisdiction on making addition u/s 153A of the Act in case of unabated assessment. Accordingly, the cross objection was filed belatedly. It is submitted that the assessee has raised a pure legal issue in the cross objection and accordingly, it is prayed that the delay in filing the CO may be condoned. Having heard the parties on this preliminary issue and having regard to the submissions made by the assessee coupled with the fact that the assessee has only raised a legal issue, which it is entitled to raised before any authority as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in filing the cross objection belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the cross objection and admit the same.
5. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the hands of the assessee on 25.7.2013. Prior to the search, the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 17.12.2012. Accordingly, the AO completed the present assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee has received loans aggregating to Rs.6.00 crores from entitles belonging to a person named Shri Praveen Jain, who has been alleged to have been indulging in providing only accommodation entries. The details of loan availed by the assessee from Praveen Jain group are given below:-
Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.6.00 crores relating to above said loans u/s 68 of the Act.
6. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the above said addition and hence the revenue has filed the appeal challenging the relief granted by Ld CIT(A). In the cross objection, the assessee is contending that the above said addition is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction.
7. Since the legal issue contested by the assessee goes to the root of the matter, we heard the parties on the legal issue. We noticed earlier that the original assessment was completed for this year (AY 2010-11) on 17.12.2012, whereas the search has taken place on 25.7.2013, i.e., subsequent to the completion of regular assessment. Hence the present year falls under the category of unabated assessment year.
8. It is w........