Matching Fragments
Name Date MODE LOAN RECIVED
LOAN REPAID
AASTHA IMPEX 02-06-2011 RTGS 50,00,000 AASTHA IMPEX 27-06-
2011 RTGS §0,00,000 AASTHA IMPEX 20-03-2012 RTGS 1,00,00,000
AASTHA IMPEX 20-03-2012. RTGS 1,00,00,000 AASTHA IMPEX 05-
03-2012 RTGS 50,00,000 AASTHA IMPEX 24-08-2012 RTGS -
40,00,000 AASTHA IMPEX 12-10-2012 RTGS 10,00,000 AASTHA
IMPEX ---:16-10-2012_ RTGS. 1,00,00,000 AASTHA IMPEX 16-10-
2012 RTGS 50,00,000 AASTHA IMPEX 24-11-2012 RTGS --50,00,000
BALAJI IMPEX 04-05-2011 RTGS. 1,00,00,000 BALAJIIMPEX 13-06-
2012 RTGS ----_1,00,00,000 IMPEX GEMS 23-06-2011 RTGS‟ _
50,00,000 IMPEX GEMS 17-03-2012 RIGS 50,00,000 MAYUR
EXPORTS ----16-05-2011 | RTGS 50,00,060 MAYUR EXPORTS 25-06-
2011 RTGS 1,00,00,000 22-11-2012 RTGS 1,50,00,000 22-07-2011
RTGS 50,00,000 MALHAR EXPORTS 06-02-2012 RTGS 50,00,000
MARVIN ENTERPRISES 20-03-2012 RTGS 1,00,00, 000 MARVIN
ENTERPRISES 09-10-2012 RTGS 1,00,00,000
MEHUL GEMS PVT. LTD. 29-02-2012 RTGS 1,00,00,000 MEHUL
GEMS PVT. LTD. 29-02-2012 RTGS 1,00,00,000. MEHUL GEMS. PVT.
LTD. 1307-2012 RTGS 1,50,00,000 MEHUL GEMS PVI. LTD. 08-11-
2012 RTGS 50,00,000 MINAL GEMS 23-06-2011 RTGS 50,00,000
MINAL GEMS 1703-2012 RTGS 50,00,000 MANAS GEMS PVT. LTD.
29-02-2012 RTGS 1,00,00,000 MANAS GEMS PVT. LTD. 08-11-2012
RTGS 1,00,00,000 | MOTHER EXPORTS 25-06-2011 RTGS 50,00,000
MOTHER EXPORTS 17-03-2012 RTGS 50,00,000 MOULI GEMS 25-
06-2011 RTGS 50,00,000 MOULI GEMS 19-10-2011 RTGS 10,00,000
MOULI GEMS 17-03-2012 RTGS 40,00,000 MOHIT ENTERPRISES 27-
06-2011 RTGS 2,75,00,000 MOHIT ENTERPRISES 20-03-2012 RTGS
°1,00,00,000 MOHIT ENTERPRISES 21-10-2011 RTGS 80,00,000
MOHIT ENTERPRISES 2210-2011 RTGS 20,00,000 MOHIT
ENTERPRISES 09-11-2012 RTGS - 1,75,00,000 MOHIT ENTERPRISES
10-11-2012 RTGS 1,00,00,000 NAVKAR DIAMOND 27-06-2011 RTGS
ITA. Nos.4286 & 4474/Mum/2019
A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2016-17
50,00,000 NAVKAR DIAMOND 04-12-2012 RTGS 50,00,000 NAVKAR
DIAMONDS. 20-03-2012 RTGS 1,00,00,000 NAVKAR DIAMONDS. 22-
11-2012 RTGS 1,00,00,000 PRIME STAR 18-05-2011-RTGS 50,00,000
PRIME STAR. 06-12-2012 RTGS 50,00,000 ROSHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.
29-02-2012 RTGS 2,00,00,000 ROSHAN GEMS PVT. LTD. 08-11-2012
RTGS 2,00,00,000 SONAM GEMS PVT. LTD. 29-02-2012 RTGS
1,50,00,000 SONAM GEMS PVT. LTD. 29-02-2012 RTGS 1,50,00,000
SONAM GEMS PVT. LTD. Q103-2012 RTGS 2,00,00,000 SONAM
GEMS PVT. LTD. 09-11-2012 RTGS 5,00,00,000 24,75,00,000
24,75,00,000
6.3.33 Thus, it has to be said that the appellant had done everything in
its power to prove the three ingredients required to prove the satisfactory
nature of the loan transactions. In these circumstances, the onus had
shifted to the Assessing Officer. If the Assessing Officer was still not
satisfied, he had the option of making inquiries from the lenders by
summoning them. However, as seen from the order, he did not do any
such thing. Further, if the Assess, g Officer was not satisfied with what
had been given to him by appellant, he was duty bound to specify what
more material he wanted the appellant to furnish. The Assessing Officer
never asked for any further material, though time and again the
appellant asked in their submissions. This leads to the inescapable
conclusion that the Assessing Officer could not think of any further
material to ask for and proceeded to reject the appellant's claims, relying
upon the information/material, which he never even brought to the notice
of the appellant for any rebuttal. The unequivocal conclusion that all the
three ingredients having been satisfied, the impugned loans of Rs.24.75
crore have to be treated as explained satisfactorily and the Assessing
Officer was wrong in having disregarded overwhelmingly supportive
evidence. No cogent material was adduced by him to show that loans
were unexplained. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.24,75,00,000/-
, made in the Assessment Order, fails on several counts - (1) reliance on
evidence that is totally inadequate; (2) failure to make available
incriminating material (reports, statements etc.) forming basis for action
by the Assessing Officer; (3) failure to give due opportunity to the
appellant to cross-examine witnesses, whose statement might have been
relied upon; and, (4) failure to recognize the satisfactory nature of the
explanation/evidence tendered by the appellant to explain identity of
creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the
loan transactions. Hence, the impugned addition of Rs.24.75 crore is
hereby deleted."
