TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely on account of low GP rate. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not justify the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act on which no specific ground have been raised by the revenue. In preceding assessment year 2008-09, on the basis of same method of accounting, the Assessing Officer accepted the GP rate disclosed by the assessee, therefore, Assessing Officer should follow rule of consistency and on the same method of accounting, merely on low GP rate, such addition should not be made. Since the assessee maintained the books of account on the same accounting method as of the preceding assessment year as well as in assessment year under appeal, therefore, there was no basis for making the addition against the addition particularly when no specific defects have been pointed out in maintenance of the books of account and that ld. CIT(Appeals) did not approve rejection of the books of account. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition. This ground of appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) on going through the report of DDIT (Inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermination of the issue. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the departmental appeal on this issue. Ground Nos. of the appeal of the revenue dismissed. - ITA No. 846 & 847/Chd/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2017 - Bhavnesh Saini (Judicial Member) And Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar, CIT-DR For the Respondent : Rajiv Gupta ORDER Bhavnesh Saini (Judicial Member) Both the departmental appeals are directed against different orders of ld. CIT(Appeals)-I, Ludhiana dated 30.07.2014 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2. We have heard ld. Representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of authorities below and considered the material available on record. Both the appeals are decided issue-wise as under. ISSUE NO. 1 3. On ground No. 1 in assessment year 2008-09, revenue challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 17,68,793/-. The Assessing Officer has made this addition on account of disallowance of jewellery making charges of the equal amount. The said disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no such making charges are incorporated distinctly and separately on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer has not brought any adverse material against the assessee to make this addition. The ld. CIT(Appeals), accordingly, deleted the addition. 5. After considering rival submissions, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The ld. counsel for the assessee referred to PB-18 which is trading account. PB-32 is reply filed before Assessing Officer in which it was explained that jewellery is got manufactured from outside job work. PB-69 is Show Cause Notice issued by the Assessing Officer in which no explanation of the assessee on this issue have been called for. It, therefore, appears that this addition is made by the Assessing Officer without calling for the explanation of the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) on proper appreciation of the facts and material on record, correctly observed that there is no specific requirement to mention the jewellery making charges in the sale bills so as to ensure that same are considered allowable or considered as genuine expenses. The assessee maintained proper records and satisfied the ld. CIT(Appeals) that this addition is wholly unwarranted. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also did not approve rejection of the books of accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that since this addition is made without giving opportunity to the assessee, therefore, such addition is not warranted and accordingly, deleted the addition. 6. After considering rival submissions, we do not find merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. This addition is made merely on account of low GP rate. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not justify the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act on which no specific ground have been raised by the revenue. In preceding assessment year 2008-09, on the basis of same method of accounting, the Assessing Officer accepted the GP rate disclosed by the assessee, therefore, Assessing Officer should follow rule of consistency and on the same method of accounting, merely on low GP rate, such addition should not be made. Since the assessee maintained the books of account on the same accounting method as of the preceding assessment year as well as in assessment year under appeal, therefore, there was no basis for making the addition against the addition particularly when no specific defects have been pointed out in maintenance of the books of account and that ld. CIT(Appeals) did not approve r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The ld. CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the addition. 8(i) This ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 8(ii) In assessment year 2009-10, revenue challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 98,436/-. This addition pertains to disallowance of repair charges on old jewellery, which have been disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that they do not find mention in the sale bills. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found that the charges so received have been accounted for and only charges in excess paid on jewellery sold by the assessee have been claimed as expenses. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found that on the same, he has deleted the addition in assessment year 2008-09 and accordingly deleted the addition. 9. After considering rival submissions, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of revenue. The Assessing Officer did not point out any specific defect in maintenance of the books of account by the assessee on this item. The assessee has properly recorded the net amount of repair charges of both the counts in books of account. The ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the similar addition in assessment year 2008-09 and we have con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of shares even at the very first week of incorporation i.e. M/s Bengal Credit Corporation invested for 15000 shares on 28.01.2008, 25000 shares on 29.01.2008 and M/s Ram Roop Credit Leasing Pvt. Ltd. invested in 25000 shares on 31.01.2008. ii) There was hardly any investor in shares of newly incorporated company except from Kolkata. iii) All these investors from Kolkata purchased the shares of the assessee company at a high premium of ₹ 90/- per share and further without receiving any dividend or any bonus shares, chose to sell their shares holding directly or indirectly to the Directors/Promoters at the face value of ₹ 10/- per share, thus, incurring heavy loss of ₹ 90/- per share without any reasonable cause or logic. iv) The company had not conducted any substantial business at the time of issuing of shares. 11(ii) The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the whole transaction of raising capital through share premium from unknown and unrelated companies of a distinct place was nothing but a colorable device to introduce unaccounted income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed along with relevant ch. no's date, copy of the same enclosed for your ready references at page no. 38 to 43. 5.1(d) There after the information was called for, by issuing notices u/s 133' (6) of the Act. by the respective Ld. A.O. in respect of which substantial confirmation had got received. 5.1(e) However to make further enquiry the Ld. A.O. issued an commission to Kolkata u/s 131 (1) (d) of the Act to enquire further the identity, credit worthiness of the companies as well as genuineness of the transactions in respect of share application money taken by the Radhe Sham Jain diamond jewelers group from the Kolkata based companies. In response to which DDIT (inv.) unit IV (1), Kolkata have submitted its report dated 19,03.2014 stating that the summons u/s 131 of the Act were issued to the directors, in response to which the directors of the companies submitted their books of accounts and other documents, which were verified regarding the investment and their source of investment in M/s Radhe Sham Jain Diamond Jewellers group. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. DDIT had not drawn any adverse opinion regarding the investment as well as the source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.1(k) Their after on the last day of time bar case Ld. A.O. framed his opinion to invoke the provision of section 68 of the act arbitrarily on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without any reasonable ground and material on record, which is against law and natural justice. 5.2 Cash Credits Section 68 has been reproduced as under;- Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and assesses offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer], satisfactory, the sum so credited may, be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Having regard to the phraseology used in section 68 dearly indicates that before invoking the provision of section 68 there must be either no explanations or an explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, 5.3 From the above mentioned facts, circumstances there emerged number of issues on which our written submissions are as under:- 5.3(a) Assessee have duly discharged his onus to prove the transactions. It is well established principal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... General Hospital Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 65'(MP) (Income-Cash credit-Share application money-Genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of creditor-Discharge of burden of proof by assessee, effect of-AO observed that company A had made share subscription to capital of assessee- AO doubted creditworthiness of A and directed addition of amount of share subscription provided by A to assessee- CIT(A) and tribunal deleted addition made by AO Held, if identity of person providing share .application money Is established then burden was not on assessee to prove creditworthiness of said person-Company A was not bogus or fictitious company-In instant case assessee had established identity of investor who had provided share subscription and it was established that transaction was genuine-No addition could be made u/s 68) Having regard to the same, it cannot be deduced that the assessee have fails to prove the identity, creditworthiness as well as genuineness of transaction. Hence there is no doubt that assessee company have fully discharged his onus to prove the transactions, 5.3(b) Explanations of the assessee had not rejected or rebutted by the revenue at any stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the case is to be remanded to the AO for examining the said explanation and then to arrive at a conclusion) iii) Sunam Rice Dal Mills vs CIT (2008) 304 ITR 189 (P H) Credit-Variation in dates vis-a-vis withdrawal Income cash from bank-Assessee explained that the money in question was in fact received on 9th Nov., 1973, against a cheque but the entry in respect of the same was made on 12th Nov., 1973, since 10th and 11th Nov.,1973, were bank holidays-Manager of the bank has confirmed that he had made the payment after the banking hours on 9th Nov., 1973 by exercising his discretionary power and had but the date as 12th on the cheque in his own handwriting, and the same was entered in the books of the bank as first entry on 12th Nov., 1973-Same has been corroborated by the cashier- Assessee had entered the transaction in its books of account on the date of transaction of its own-Therefore, the impugned amount cannot be treated as unexplained money and additions cannot he sustained) iv) CIT vs A. K. Daga Sons (2008) 298 ITR 623 (Mad) (Income-Cash credits-sale proceeds of jewellery-Gold and Silver jewellery sold by assessee to family members- Said jewellery w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e all the rights to make further enquires in respect of any issue as he seems fit. In the present case also while exercising his power to enquire, Ld. A.O. issued notices u/s 133 (6) of the Act. in respect of which substantial confirmation along with relevant documents as mentioned in the notice itself had got received. No adverse inference drawn from the same on record. There after Ld. A.O. issued an commission to Kolkata u/s 131 (1) (d) of the Act to enquire further the identity, credit worthiness of the companies as well as genuineness of the transactions in respect of share application money taken by the Radhe Sham Jain diamond jewelers group from the Kolkata based companies. In response to which DDIT (inv.) unit IV (1), Kolkata have submit its report dated 19.03.2014 stating that the summons u/s 131 of the Act were issued to the directors, in response to which the directors of the companies submitted their books of accounts and other documents, which were verified regarding the investment and their source of investment in M/s/Radhe Sham Jain Diamond Jewellers group. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. DDIT has not drawn any adverse opinion regarding the investmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it -was not possible for her to earn the amount even during a decade and that the source of investments could not be treated as income of assessee-No error in the finding of the Tribunal) (ii) CIT vs Value Capital Services -(P) Ltd.(2008)307 ITR 334 (Del) (Income-Cash credit-Share application money-'CIT(A) accepted the existence of the applicants-It is very difficult for the assessee to show the creditworthiness of strangers-Revenue has not shown that the applicants did not have the means to make the investment and that such investment actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee company-Addition rightly deleted by the Tribunal-No substantial question of law arises). 5.3(f) Share application money cannot be regarded as income of the assessee company. Further the honorable supreme court was held that share application money received by the assessee company cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company, which the' Ld. A.O. has totally ignored while making this addition. Hence this addition is against the facts of the case, as well as law. Reliance is being placed on (i) CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been submitted before the lower authorities and therefore the adverse inference drawn by the AO was misplaced as their expectations from the assessee travelled beyond the Ingredients of onus as prescribed by s. 68). (iv) CIT V Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (S.C) (Findings on questions of pure fact arrived at by the Tribunal are not to be disturbed by the High Court on a reference unless it appears that there was no evidence before the Tribunal upon which they, as reasonable men, could come to the conclusion to which they have come; and this is so, even though the High Court would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from that of the Tribunal. In other words, such a finding can be reviewed only en the ground that there is no evidence to support it or that it is perverse. Further, when a conclusion has been reached on an appreciation of a number of facts, whether that is sound or not must be determined, not by considering the weight to be attached to each single fact in isolation, but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole. When a Court of fact acts on material partly and partly irrelevant, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 396 (Del) (Income-Additions-Unexplained cash credits under s, 68- Principles of natural justice-AO had passed the assessment order in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as he had neither provided copies of the seized material to the, assessee nor had he allowed the assesses to cross-examine concerned party- Tribunal confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) which held the entire addition made by the AO to be invalid and had deleted the same- Once there is a violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to an assessee nor is cross-examination of the person on whose statement the AO relies upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to a denial of opportunity and,, consequently, would be fatal to the proceedings- Deletion of addition upheld. Revenue's plea was that the violation of principles of natural justice was not fatal so as to jeopardize the entire proceedings) 5.4 (Conclusion) Ld. A.O. while making this addition u/s 68 of the Act., ignored the assessee explanations, facts circumstances of the case, confirmations received u/s 133(6) of the Act., enquiry report of Ld, DDIT, Kolka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration and Assessing Officer was requested to confirm the claim of the assessee in this regard and was directed to specify as to how such inquiries and result thereof were not part of the assessment record positively or negatively. The Assessing Officer submitted his comments as called for by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the remand report of the Assessing Officer is reproduced in the impugned order which reads as under : In this regard, it is submitted that in this case the enquiry Letter was written on 22.01.2014 vide letter no.1011 to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Ludhiana for verification of identity of the companies, genuineness and source of investment of transaction of share application money received by the assessee through Director of Investigation, Ludhiana. A report regarding the same was received from DDIT(Inv.)/Unit IV(1), Kolkata vide his office letter No.9725 dated 19.03.2014 in which he has mentioned that he has verified identity of the companies, the genuineness and source of investment. After receiving the report of DDIT(Inv.), Unit IV(1), Kolkata the matter was taken up with the Addl. DIT(Inv.), Ludhiana for giving his comment on the report of the DDIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of search, no incriminating document/evidence pertaining to nature of share application money received by the assessee had been found and seized. The post search investigation revealed that number of companies who had taken the shares at premium were not available at the given address. The Inquiry Report was confronted to the assessee and the assessee requested that same report may be confronted so as to allow him to cross-examine the relevant persons. However, no further action on this issue had been taken at the level of DDIT (Investigation) to take the matter further to its logical end. Thereafter, matter was taken up by Assessing Officer and number of letters were issued under section 133(6) of the Act in order to verify the genuineness of the share application money and most of these letters were received back with reply confirming the claim of the assessee, meaning thereby no adverse evidence could be brought on record. Further, Assessing Officer has issued commission under section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act to DDIT (Investigation) at Kolkata after due deliberation with the CIT Central, Ludhiana and DIT (Investigation) Ludhiana in order to conduct detailed inqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellate proceedings. In the absence of any specific and satisfactory explanation, we are of the view that application filed by the Pr.CIT(C) Ludhiana for admission of additional evidence is not maintainable on the reason that he was not party to the appellate proceedings. Therefore, application filed by the Pr. CIT is rejected. The ld. DR further submitted that DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana has now moved proper application for admission of the additional evidence. The same is taken on record. There is no objection to filing of this application by DCIT, CC-III Ludhiana for admission of the same additional evidences filed in the Paper Book from pages 1 to 196. 17(i) The ld. DR submitted that all the additional evidences are forwarded by DDIT (Investigation) Kolkata in July/August,2016. Prior to it, nobody made a request to obtain these additional evidences. These additional evidences were not there at the time of passing of the assessment order. The ld. DR submitted that all these additional evidences are relevant to prove non genuine entries provided by share applicants to the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the department has now gathered certain details establishing that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, the said evidence is in the case of assessment of third party which are yet to be completed and is not connected with the proceedings in the case of the assessee. Moreover, the admission of said additional evidence will be against the doctrine of finality of assessment and will give rise to proliferation of litigation. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sharat Chander Bose 18 ITR 669 in which it was held that, The Tribunal rightly refused to admit entirely fresh evidence to establish an entirely new point which was not taken before ITO or AAC He has also relied upon order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Shri R.K. Sayal Vs ACIT 66 TTJ 641 in which it was held that additional evidence collected by the department after completion of block assessment of the assessee pertaining to assessment of third party yet to be completed, cannot be admitted . The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that at the stage of assessment, the Assessing Officer obtained information under section 133(6) of the Act from all the investors who have confirmed making investment in share application/share premium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asad Purohit, Narinder Kumar Jain, Pawan Aggarwal, Rakesh Aggarwal, Shiv Shankar Banka, Subhash Aggarwal and Deepak Patwari. The assessment order in the present case for assessment year 2008-09 have been passed on 30.03.2014, however, some of these statements recorded by the office of DIT (Investigation) Kolkata were either recorded prior to passing of the assessment order and some of the statements have been recorded after passing of the assessment orders. It is not clarified that as to when the office of DIT (Investigation) Kolkata recorded their statements prior to passing of the assessment orders under appeal or after passing of the assessment order under appeal, whether the assessments in the cases of these persons are completed or not and what ultimate conclusion have been drawn from these statements in their cases. These statements produced now on record did not indicate anything against the assessee, whether any of the investor who have invested in the assessee's company have provided mere entry. It is also not clarified whether these persons have made any statement directly against the interest of the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee demonstrated before us th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage. No cause, what to say of substantial cause would serve by admitting these additional evidences at this stage. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has referred to sufficient material collected at assessment stage by the Assessing Officer which was deliberately not referred to in the assessment order, otherwise Assessing Officer would not be able to make any addition against the assessee. Therefore, when the revenue has collected substantial material at assessment stage on the basis of which, ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition, there is no relevance of these additional evidences which are the statements of several persons whose statement have been recorded by DIT (Investigation), Kolkata prior to passing of the assessment order or after passing of the assessment order. In the absence of any relevance of these additional evidences to the matter in issue, we are not inclined to admit these additional evidences. The application for admission of the additional evidence is accordingly, rejected. It may also be noted here that revenue through DCIT, Central Circle-3 Ludhiana made a joint request for admission of additional evidence in both the appeals as matter in issue is same in both the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere initiated because there were large rackets of providing accommodation entries and the order under section 263 of the Act have been confirmed by the Tribunal. The ld. DR, therefore, submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting the entire addition and the matter should be re-considered by him. 23. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that assessee filed complete details of share applicants before the Assessing Officer on which investigation was carried out by the Assessing Officer through the inspectors as well as through DDIT (Investigation) Kolkata under sections 133(6) as well as by issuing commission under section 131 of the Income Tax Act. He has referred to various correspondence of the department, particularly the letter dated 29.03.2014 (PB-200) in which office note is provided in which also it was mentioned that the identity of the companies, genuineness and source of investments have been verified by the DDIT (Investigation) Kolkata vide their report dated 19.03.2014 and no adverse inference have been drawn against the assessee. He has submitted that information under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Assessing Officer and number of letters to verify the genuineness of the share applicants was issued under section 133(6) and most of these letters were received back with the reply confirming the claim of the assessee, meaning thereby no adverse evidence could be produced against the assessee, Further, the Assessing Officer issued commission under section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act to the DDIT (Investigation) at Kolkata who have submitted report to the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19.03.2014 (PB-50) which is also reproduced by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his findings which shows that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction have been proved by most of the share applicants by producing sufficient evidences before DDIT (Investigation) Kolkata and all the facts stated by the assessee have been verified. There were certain discrepancies pointed out which have been duly replied by the assessee and verified by A.O. and no adverse inference was drawn on the same. These reports and material on record clearly proved that inquiries conducted by Investigation Wing at Kolkata proved the identity, creditworthiness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to infer if assessee received any accommodation entry from any party. The Assessing Officer deliberately did not discuss the details of inquiries conducted at Kolkata in the assessment order. Therefore, the initial burden on the assessee has been discharged to prove identity of the share applicants, their credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction. No further probe was made by the Assessing Officer. In this case, no link of parties involved in providing accommodation entries has been established. Since the initial burden of proving genuine share application money and share premium received by assessee, have been discharged by the assessee, therefore, additional burden was on the revenue to show that even if the share applicants did not have the means to make the investment, the investments made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee company so as to enable it to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. A.O. however, did nothing 25. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. 380 ITR 571 held as under : Held, dismissing the appeal, that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-(Appeals) revealed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of amounts shown as received by the assessee towards share application money from 33 persons, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce all these persons. While accepting the explanation and the statements given by three persons the Assessing Officer found that the response from the others was either not available or was inadequate and added an amount of ₹ 46 lakhs pertaining to 30 persons to the income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and deleted the additions. On further appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the additional burden was on the Department to show that even if the share applicants did not have the means to make the investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. No substantial question of law arose. 25(iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 held as under : Income- Cash credit- Share application money- If the share application mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of various letters issued by the Assessing Officer seeking explanation of the assessee as well as conducting investigation through Investigation Wing of Kolkata. The remand report from the Assessing Officer was also sought in which Assessing Officer has also confirmed that facts of genuineness of the investment in capital of assessee company have been verified by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. It is also noted that during the course of search, no adverse material was found against the assessee of receiving any accommodation entry. Therefore, when no adverse material was found against the assessee, where is the question for ld. CIT(Appeals) to correct the error in the assessment order. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has corrected the error in the assessment order by deleting the addition because Assessing Officer has not mentioned the details of investigation conducted by him through Investigation Wing at Kolkata in assessment order without any justification. The ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly considered the entire material for the purpose of deleting the addition. Why the Kolkata parties have made investment in the assessee company is not relevant because these parties have confirmed in makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
