TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is restored to his file for deciding the same afresh by way of speaking order as per law after considering all the facts and evidences available on record as well as reported by the AO Unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 - Held that:- CIT(A) supported by evidences on record as referred to by the first appellate authority, we find no justification to interfere with the deletion of this addition. The ld. DR could not be able to rebut the findings given by the CIT(A) on this issue nor is there any material available on record to discard the same. - ITA No. 2852/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR For The Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of account of Mrs. Mamta Choudhary, explained the Mrs. Mamta Choudhary was the proprietor of M/s. Asia Himalaya Overseas, a 100% Export Oriented Unit having a turnover of more than 30 crores and the amount deposited by her in assessee-company was out of her funds. It was further submitted that in financial Year 2004-05, during the course of survey u/s. 131A, Mrs. Mamta Choudhary along with her husband Mr. Dhiraj Singh surrendered a sum of ₹ 2,36,00,000/- under the head excess cash found . Subsequently, the export business was closed and the capital was invested into the assessee company for the purpose of purchasing the multiplex which was to be developed by the assessee company. It was, thus, explained that Smt. Mamta Choudhary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or more than 3 years. (v). The veracity of agreement sated to be signed between Mrs. Choudhary and one Mr. Ghevarchand R. Jain for sale of equity share on assessee company as source for funding for Mrs. Choudhary in the assessee company, was also doubtful. (vi). The agreement for purchase of multiplex is a self serving document to justify the claim, as the agreement was entered between the two major share holders, i.e., Mrs. Mamta Choudhary and Sh. Dhiraj Singh for that project which never existed even on papers. It was also pointed out that as per said agreement dated 15.01.2007, the multiplex was agreed to be sold for ₹ 8,00,00,000/-, but no advance was taken from the buyer till 14.04.2007. 4. On the strength of above reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e books of account. In the remand proceedings, the assessee even denied to produce the books of accounts to verify the cash flow statement furnished before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the creditworthiness of the creditor accepted by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified. 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterated the contentions raised before the ld. Authorities below and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order in detail, which needs no interference, as all the ingredients of section 68 stood satisfied and therefore, the deletion of addition is quite justified. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the entire material available on record. Undisputedly, the assessee filed cash flow statement of Mrs. Mamt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce before the undersigned. No write up has been filed by the counsel. 8.2 The ld. CIT(A) again vide letter dated 05.10.2012 directed the AO to give one more opportunity to the assessee for examination of the additional evidence. In compliance, the AO gave several opportunities to the assessee as is evident from its second remand report dated 01.11.2012 (placed at page 45 of the paper book) whereby the AO has reported assessee s failure to verify the documents and the plea taken by assessee vide letter dt. 01.11.12 as under: The assessee instead of producing the books of accounts filed one page letter dated 01.11.2012. According to this letter, the assessee claimed that documents submitted as additional evidence either are not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lained cash credits, are that the AO noticed that the assessee during the year received an amount of ₹ 1,57,00,000/- from Shri Kishor Kainth and ₹ 34,17,339/- from M/s. Himland (U.K). The assessee was asked given the details. In response, it was submitted that these amounts were received as advance from these parties against the sale of flats. The amount of ₹ 1.57 crores received from Mr. Kishore Kainth was forfeited on cancellation of the agreement in terms of the cancellation agreement singe between two parties and that there was a civil suit pending in the High Court of Himanchal Pradesh for recovery of ₹ 49,67,943/- in the case of M/s. Himland Real Estate (UK). The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
