Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1572 - ITAT SURATRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Unexplained source of cash deposits not acknowledged by the AO - HELD THAT:- Details were submitted for verification of source of cash deposits such as Return of Income, Computation of Income, Unsecured Loan taken during the relevant year, details of source of cash deposits, Balance Sheet for F.Y. 2012-13, cash book of F.Y. 2013-14 and balance sheet of 2013-14 etc., of all the investors who were asked by the AO by notice dated 03.03.2016 and 07.11.2016 and also during the course of hearing. All the required details have already been submitted during the scrutiny assessment proceedings vide various submissions and same were also acknowledged by the AO. Valuation of shares as per DCF Method - It is widely followed method for valuation of unquoted equity shares. This method involves projection of future cash flows. Techno, economic viability stata report was also obtained based on the said projection and conserving the profitability of the project. Thus, the projection was drawn as per the assessee after stating various aspects of the whole nature and other factors related to project. The actual figures may differ from the projections due to various factors and circumstances of the market in real time. On the entirety of the aspects, we rely upon the decision of Shree Salasar Overseas Pvt. Ltd., [2011 (11) TMI 686 - ITAT JAIPUR] it was held as “that details were filed before the Assessing Officer vide a letter in which, it was mentioned that such expenses were being allowed in earlier year. Hence, this was not a case where there was no enquiry. AO had called for explanation on both the ground by issuance of notice and subsequently, the assessee had also submitted all the details in order to satisfy the queries raised during the investigations done by the AO which clearly shows that the AO had undertaken the exercise of examining of both the above issues. It appears that since the AO was satisfied with the assessee’s explanation, he accepted the same. Even the commissioner conceded the position that AO made the enquiries, but the grievances of the commissioner was that the AO should have made further enquiries rather accepting the assessee’s explanation, therefore it could not be said that it was a case of lack of enquiry. Pr.CIT has not pointed out any specific deficiency in the enquiry that was not made, in the show cause notice as well as in the order u/s.263 of the Act - We hold that the order passed by ld.Pr.CIT u/s.263 of the Act for the above stated reasons is hereby set-aside and quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
|