Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1484 - AT - Income TaxAddition on accommodation entry - Reopening of assessment - where about of concerns - Held that:- There was a remand directed by the Commissioner on 17.12.2012 and again on 13.01.2014 is acknowledged in the first part of the Remand Report. Similarly from Paper Book page 236, it is evident that Virdi Travel Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the investment in shares of ₹ 3 lacs by relying upon bank statement reflecting the investment; copy of share certificate received; copy of income tax return filed alongwith balance sheet in support of the said assertion. The fact that this was received and filed is evident from the fact that it was diarised as per stamp of AO, Ward-11, New Delhi stamp dated 27.01.2014. Similar is the position in regard to other two replies received by the AO from Natraj Communication Pvt. Ltd. and V.R. Traders Pvt. Ltd. at Paper Book page 282 and 329. It is seen that the evidences available on record right from assessment stage have not been assailed negatively at any of the stages by the AO nor by the CIT(A) or for that matter even before the ITAT. Qua the other two concerns who did not reply though notice u/s 133(6) was served upon them, it is seen that as per record Lokesh Tools & Trading Pvt. Ltd. who it is claimed had paid ₹ 2,50,000/- vide Instrument No.- 405868 and Suraj Cycle Mart Pvt.Ltd. who also has paid ₹ 2,50,000/- by Instrument No.517394 the record shows that the details of banks; amounts; instruments and dates were all along available on record wherein no further enquiry was considered necessary by the AO. The fact remains that the notices have been served upon these parties. Thus, in a case were 4 out of 6 concerns admittedly reply the two who though do not reply but their evidences remain unassailed per se cannot be the reason for sustaining the addition in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the facts where all details are available notice u/s 133(6) have been served, four have replied thus, if the department still had any further doubts about their existence or genuineness then their presence should have been enforced as the whereabouts of these two concerns were known to the department as notices were served upon these parties at the address given is a fact on record. In the afore-mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances, the request of the Revenue to direct yet another remand does not make any sense. It is seen that when the evidences on record are considered qua the stated business of the assessee, thus find that the addition on merits cannot be sustained. Addition on facts was wrongly made as there is nothing on record justifying the addition except the suspicion of the Revenue which cannot be the basis of either making or sustaining an addition as at best it could have been the basis for making a further enquiry which already stood directed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|