9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ratio as in this case the share applicants did not have any source of income. The ratio of Lovely Exports mentions that in case of genuine transaction by a share-applicant the amount of share money can be assessed in the hands of the applicants. It does not cover a case where the share holders does not have source of income as in the present case. 4. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.24,000/- being addition of disallowance of expenses as per special audit report on a wrong appreciation of fact and ignoring that the assessee has failed to offer any explanation before the Assessing Officer despite the specific opportunity given. 5. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.15.40 lacs being the addition on account of unexplained loan on a wrong appreciation of law and without any basis substituting his own satisfaction in place of A.O's satisfaction that assessee has not discharged his onus as provided u/s.68 of the Act. The CIT (A) has not pointed out any fact which could indicate that A.O's satisfaction was based on any wrong appreciation of facts. 6. That the order of the Id. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts be vacated and the order of the AO b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ediate deposit of cheques in their respective bank account. Since the copies of IT returns were not furnished and no specific source of income was stated, the Assessing Officer took that the creditworthiness of the share applicants has not been established as also they were not having any real source of income and as such he proceeded to make the addition as unexplained cash credit to the income of the appellant. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished exhaustive written submissions dated 30/06/2008 explaining, inter alia, that the amount received was share money and the applications for allotment of shares were found and seized by the Department. That apart, the assessee has filed complete information before the Assessing Officer substantiating identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction and thus, the onus that lay upon the assessee stood duly discharged. He also placed on record the two affidavits along with forwarding letter dated 21/08/2007, which were filed before the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment on 24/08/2007 and after taking approval of the Add. CIT (Central), Kanpur of his draft assessment order made on 23/08/2007 made after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of the share applicants were on the record of the Assessing Authority even at the time when he prepared the draft assessment for approval and before passing the final assessment order on 24/08/2007. It is wrong to say that the identity of the share applicants was not known or that they were not in existence. The learned CIT(A), after taking a remand report and considering the entire material on record, has accepted the correctness of the claim as that of genuine share money and deleted the addition by following Apex Court judgment, which is duly applicable to the facts in present appeal. There being no error in his decision, the grounds raised in appeal by Revenue, need to be rejected. 6. We have heard parties and have perused the entire material on record. It is evident that the Assessing Officer has instituted enquiry u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 from the share applicant's but did not confront the assessee with his enquiry results nor required him to produce the share applicants before him for substantiating their creditworthiness. In fact this is a case where as a consequence of action u/s 132 of the Act, the share application forms were found and seized from asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds raised in appeal by Revenue, reject the same. 7. In ground No. 4, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.24,000/-the expenses relating to earlier years. 8. We have heard parties with reference to material on record. The CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee to be correct in view of the fact that the amount of Rs.24,000/- was credited into the accounting charges and debited to suspense account in financial year 2000-2001. This had resulted into the claim of accountancy charges in the year under consideration at Rs.8,500/-, which otherwise would have been Rs.32,500/-. The learned CIT(A) however, did not make any reference to the return of income or computation filed with the return of income showing claim of Rs.24,000/- made for deduction of expenses in the impugned year nor did he make verification of the facts himself. We, therefore, set aside his decision and remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for verification of fact and adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In ground No. 5, the Revenue has assailed the deletion of addition of Rs.15,40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition. 13. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee contends that the learned CIT(A) has coterminous power as that of the Assessing Officer. In fact this is a case where the assessee had discharged the burden that lay upon him u/s 68 of the Act and the Assessing Officer himself has expressed his satisfaction in respect of the three credits of Rs.2,65,000/- from M/s Tankers India, Rs.5,75,000/- from M/s Aash Chemicals and Rs.2,50,000/- from M/s Samridhi Share & Capitals Ltd. Under these circumstances, no dispute can be raised by the Revenue about these three credits at this stage. As regards the 4th creditor, the assessee had furnished complete details and the burden u/s 68 of the Act also stood discharged but the Assessing Authority though had full opportunity, did not give any adverse comment as is evident from the copy of remand report placed at page 31 to 33 of the paper book. Under these circumstances and the payment having been received through bank account and creditors being regular income-tax assessees besides there being due confirmations on record, there is no case of Revenue to say that the learned CIT(A) has committed any error in accepting the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
