TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eness of the transaction, is on the assessee – the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITA No. 872/DEL/2012, ITA No. 1203/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2014 - Shri S. V. Mehrotra And Shri Joginder Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Smt. Renuka Jain Gupta, C.I.T. DR For the Respondent : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Shri Sumit Goel ORDER The assessee as well as the revenue are in cross appeals for AY 2007-08 challenging the order of the ld. First appellate authority XXVII, New Delhi. The revenue has raised the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- made by the AO u/.s 68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 750000 5. Bollywood Institute Dance Drama 500000 Total 9850000 3. During the hearing of these appeals, we have heard Smt. Renuka Jain Gupta, ld. CIT, DR and Shri Raj Kumar Gupta along with Shri Sumit Gupta, ld. Counsel for the assessee. The sum and substance of the arguments preferred on behalf of the assessee is that no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee and further there is no justification in making/sustaining the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR strongly defended the addition made by the AO and contradicted the part relief granted by the ld. CIT(A). 4. We have considered the rival su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e International, Ramesh Bais (HUF) and M/s Bollywood Institute of Dance Drama. As per the revenue, nobody attended. The summons issued to M/s Bollywood Institute of Dance Drama received back on 16.11.2009 with comments. S/g se poochne se pata chala hai kafi dino se institute band pari hai atah waapis. The assessee was asked to produce these persons/organizations/entities to satisfy the requirement of section 68 in respect of unsecured loan of Rs.1,23,50,000. Not satisfied with the response, statement, reply as detailed in para 3.2 onwards of the assessment order, the AO was of the view that the assessee did not establish the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness as mentioned in para 3.8 of the assessment order, consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pex Court in Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 107 ITR 938(SC) and Kale Khan Md. Hanif vs CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC). The Hon ble Rajasthan High Court even went to the extent that each entry must be separately explained by the assessee (CIT vs R.S. Rahtore 212 ITR 390 (Raj) and the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Korlay Trading Ltd. 232 ITR 820. So far as contention of the assessee that the transaction by cheque is itself a proof, we are of the view that transaction by cheque itself may not be sacrosanct. Our view of fortified by Hon ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254. In the case of Nova Promoters and Finlease, though on share application money, it was held that in view of the link between the entry providers and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
