TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the difference noted in Notes to Accounts was only because of typographical error and on the other hand, the audited accounts of the assessee show that there was no change in the figure of investment as per Balance Sheet dated 31.3.2001 and 31.3.2002 and there was no increase in the value of the investment in the said balance sheets – addition deleted - I.T.A.No.1386/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2012 - SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JJ. Appellant by: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Sr.DR O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of DCIT, Central Circle-23, New Delhi dated 20.1.2012 on the following ground of appeal:- 1. On the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Audit report for the financial year 200001 is incorrect. The contention of the assessee is acceptable. The investment in 97500 shares of M/s Two Brothers Filament Pvt. Ltd. (6,87,500 6,00,000) amounting to Rs.33,96,250/- remained unexplained on the part of the assessee. In absence of proper reply/evidence from the assessee, the same is added to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. In view of the facts of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed the true particular of its income in this regard and for that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. (addition of Rs.33,96,250) 4. Being aggrieved by the above action of the AO, the assessee invoked the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has categorically confirmed that no new shares were acquired during F.Y. 2001-02. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence, or detail, or document to rebut this simple explanation of the appellant that the two Notes to Accounts differ only because of typographical error. The appellant has also furnished confirmations from M/s Two Brothers who have sold the concerned shares to the appellant. Except for the said erroneous Notes to Accounts, which has been explained as a typographical error by the appellant, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any fresh investment has been made by the appellant during the F.Y. 2001-02. The audited accounts also confirm this. In view of the facts and circumstances of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified in holding that the action of the AO was based on erroneous Notes to Accounts which has been explained as a typographical error by the appellant assessee and he also erred in the findings that there was no evidence to suggest that any fresh investment was made by the assessee during the relevant year. Supporting the action of the AO, the ld. DR urged to set aside the impugned order and to restore the assessment order. 9. We have carefully considered the rival arguments of both the parties and perused entire record placed before us. On bare reading of the operative part of the impugned order, we observe that the figure of share investment as per Balance sheet dated 31.3.2001 and 31.3.2002 reveals no change in the amounts and there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
