NITIN RAJ JAIN Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 14.5.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

(2.) The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the appellant- assessee was an individual and proprietor of a firm 'M/s. Vinod Steels'. The appellant-assessee had filed his Income Tax Return on 19.9.2012 for Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.1,86,260/-. The case of the appellant-assessee was taken-up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was issued. One of the issue raised by the Assessment Officer was that during the course of assessment proceedings, it had transpired that the assessee had taken unsecured loans from two different companies. From one company, namely 'Tanish Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.' (hereafter referred to as 'TTPL'), loan of Rupees Two Crores was taken, whereas, from other company namely 'M/s. Punit Oils and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as 'POCPL') a loan to the tune of Rupees One Crore was taken. The explanation submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings was ignored by the Assessment Officer and it was held that the creditor companies were not genuine business concerns. Hence, it was held that the loans taken by the assessee were not genuine. The Assessment Officer, vide assessment order dated 30.3.2015, made an addition of Rupees Three Crores under Section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved against the said order, appellant-assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the appellant-assessee was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2017. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant-assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the Act. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14.5.2019. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant- assessee.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-assessee had taken unsecured loans from genuine companies. The inquiry had not been properly conducted by the Assessment Officer while holding that the creditor companies were not genuine.