TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties to whom investments were sold, etc. - CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act - he was also justified in deleting the addition made on account of commission for providing accommodation entries @ 2% - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 2038/Del/2009, CO No. 152/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2014 - Shri G. D. Agrawal And Shri I. C. Sudhir,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ved Jain, CA For the Respondent : Shri Gagan Sood, Sr. DR ORDER Per I. C. Sudhir, Judicial Member The revenue has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds:- 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 27,00,000/- made u/s 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/2010 order dated 9.8.2010 asstt. year 2000-01 2. ITO vs. F. Seven Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2553/D/2010 (asstt. year 2002-03) order dated 19.11.2010 4. He also refereed copies of several documents filed in support of the genuineness of the claimed transactions made available at page Nos. 1 to 83 of the paper book. 5. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below we find that the AO had denied the genuineness of the claimed receipts of ₹ 27 lacs on the basis that the assessee failed to produce all those four persons, summons issued by the AO to them were also not complied with and that immediately before issuing cheques those four parties had deposited cash in their respective bank accounts. The submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) has given following finding :- I have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the AR of the appellant and the various judicial pronouncements related to the issue. The crucial observations and findings on the basis of which this ground of the appellant is being finalized are as follows:- 1. The assessing officer has made an addition of ₹ 27 lacs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act primerly on grounds that the persons to whom the sale was made did not respond to summons u/s 131 and they were also not produced before the assessing officer. The AO also observed that there were cash deposits in the bank accounts of these parties which provided indications that this transaction was in the nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies had been filed before the AO. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of CIT Vrs. Divine Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd 299 ITR (Del) and CIT Vrs. Orissa Corporation (Supra). In the present set of facts it is clear that the only dispute raised by the assessing officer was related to the non appearance of the parties to whom the sale was made and the cash deposits found in their bank accounts. On both these grounds, in view of. the various judicial pronouncements, it can be very validly decided that since the identity and genuineness of the transaction has been established by the appellant there was no case for making an addition u/s 68 of the income tax act. On the basis of the above observations I am inclined to conclude tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
