Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 392 - ITAT DELHIAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- Bank transactions raise suspicion towards the genuineness of the transaction similarly in the case of Victory Portfolio Limited the income shown in its P&L account raises suspicion thereby creating doubt on the genuineness of the transaction. In the case of World Broadband Communications Ltd. there is no evidence except the PAN details. Assessee should furnish satisfactory documentary evidences to establish the genuineness of the transactions along with the creditworthiness of the lender, we, therefore, restore this issue to the files of the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish relevant satisfactory demonstrative evidences to discharge its onus under section 68 of the Act. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r 8D deleted on finding that there is no exempt income. As there is no exempt income no addition is to be made u/s 14A of the Act and the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same, therefore, no interference is called for. Reconciliation of Receipts as per TDS (26AS) and Books - HELD THAT:- Advances received from various parties and whereas before us the counsel has furnished a reconciliation statement as above. We are of the considered view that reconciliation statement so filed before us needs to be examined/verified by the AO. We accordingly restore this issue to the files of the AO. The assessee is directed to reconcile the entire difference with satisfactory explanation and if the reconciliation is not accepted by the AO then the entire difference of ₹ 1,03,08,430/- shall be treated as the unaccounted receipts of the assessee. Ground treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Condonation of delay - delay of 1223 days - HELD THAT:- Assessee sated that the Director’s of the company directed the CA to file Cross Objection on receiving the memo of the appeal filed by the Revenue. It is the say of the counsel that the CA did not file the CO on time which caused the delay in filing and the delay should be condoned. As perused the order sheet entries in revenue’s appeal, we find that counsel Mahavir Singh, Advocate is appearing in this case from 28.02.2019 till 05.08.2019 and it is only on 04.10.2019 the Cross Objection was filed. On these demonstrative facts, we do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel. The arguing counsel Mahavir Singh, Advocate was very much aware of the appeal of the revenue since 28.02.2019 and yet did not care to file any cross objection which needs to be filed within 30 days from the date of the appeal filed by the Revenue.
|