TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count can be allowed without any supporting evidence – thus, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. Unexplained investment u/s 69 – Failure to explain the source of investment – Held that:- CIT(A) has simply stated that the investment has been fully explained by the assessee - CIT(A) has not sought any remand report from the AO - this ground is also restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 – Failure to produce documentary evidences – Held that:- The AO has observed that there is an increase in unsecured loans and the assessee was asked to explain the increase in secured loans and to furnish the details - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its u/s.68 inspite of the failure on the part of the assessee to produce necessary documentary evidences. [4] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. [5] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be setaside and that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 2. In this case, notice of hearing was sent to the assessee. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Again, a notice of hearing was sent for hearing the appeal on 15/04/2014. On 26/05/2014, a notice of hearing was served upon the assessee through Departmental Representative. A letter dated 17/06/2014 is received by the Registry from Shri Vikram Ratnoo, Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that the onus is on the assessee to prove that expenditure have been incurred for carrying out the business activity. In the absence of the material evidence, such expenditure cannot be allowed. He further submitted that the AO has categorically submitted that no details have been filed by the assessee despite having been given various opportunities. 6. We have heard the ld.Sr.DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO in his order has observed that despite having been given opportunity to the assessee, assessee did not produce any evidence in support of its claim of expenditure. The AO has also recorded that the assessee-company was requested vide various no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts claim and the ld.CIT(A), on receipt of such evidence, would seek comments of the AO and pass a decision afresh. 7. Ground No.2 is against the deletion of addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of AO and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition without giving any basis of such deletion. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has simply stated that investment has been fully explained by the ld.AR in his submission. He submitted that no remand report was sought from the AO. 8. We have heard the ld.Sr.DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the AO in his order vide paras-12 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000/- on 11/01/2007 and ₹ 81,950/- being withdrawn on 19/03/2007 in the name of M/s.CEE AAR Decors Pvt.Ltd. By this it can be inferred that the assessee-company might have made investment upto this extent form this account as reflected in the Balance Sheet. However, investment to the tune of ₹ 10,00,000/- remains un-explained as no explanation/evidences regarding the source of such investment has been put forth by the Ld.AR of the assesseecompany and no corresponding entries in the assessee s books of accounts has been disclosed. Accordingly, the said sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- is held to be the deemed income in the hands of the assessee-company under provisions of Sec.69 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
