TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which too was done in the course of the banking channels. The ITR and the concerned balance sheets etc. of the said company were placed on record and considered by the CIT (A) - though not by the AO. The amounts were reflected in the balance sheets. In these circumstances, the finding of fact arrived at by the CIT (A) and the ITAT cannot be considered unreasonable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA 466/2014 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2015 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. K. Gauba,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. P. Roychoudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ved Jain with Mr. V.M. Chaurasia, Advocates. ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Open Court) 1. The Revenue was aggrieved by an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year ₹ 9,75,00,000/-. Complete details of the parties with copies of their confirmations, copies of accounts, photocopies of the cheques and income tax assessment details were provided. Amounts of ₹ 4,77,55,000/- were given as advance and received back during the same year i.e. relevant year. Here also complete details of the parties, confirmation copies, copies of cheques and income tax details were provided 2) An amount of ₹ 1,10,00,000/- was advance received during the year which remained outstanding at the year end. Here also complete details of the parties, confirmation copies, copies of cheques and income tax details were provided. 3) An amount of ₹ 1,75,00,000/- was received as advance and wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces received alongwith the details of the PAN No., the Ward/Circle where assessed, the copies of bank accounts, copies of cheques. The appellant had discharged its onus of proving the identity of the persons, their credit worthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. On the other hand the AO has made no inquiry in respect of each person to show that the evidence submitted by the appellant was not correct. The AO has not made any inquiry in respect of the amounts which have been added to the income of the appellant. It was the duty of the AO to utilize the information to prove that the investment made by the persons was not genuine. Once the appellant had discharged its responsibility it was the duty of the AO to make inquires. Nowh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment, notice under Section 133 (6) was issued to verify this claim from the concerned party. The notice could not, however, be served. In these circumstances, the assessee was asked to produce the party. The assessee instead furnished copies of the ITR and balance sheets of the said company. The CIT (A) after noting all the materials took note of the facts that the ITR and balance sheets of the said company was on the record which reflected the said amount of ₹ 4,32,07,394/-. In these circumstances, the said appellate Commissioner concluded as follows:- I have perused all the documents. The AO has added the amount in respect of sundry creditors amounting to ₹ 4,32,07,394/- stating that the amount was the appellant's own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presents the income of the appellant in terms of the provision of the Act the AO may initiate action under section 148 for the relevant assessment year in the case of the appellant on the basis of such information. 4. The Revenue argues that the order of the CIT (A) and the ITAT acknowledges that certain transactions or entries require a more intensive scrutiny which is the reason why liberty has been given to issue notice under Section 147/148. It was urged that the explanation afforded during the assessment proceedings with respect to the entries in question, was not satisfactory and in the given circumstances of the case, the AO acted correctly in adding back the amounts. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee, on the othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and over their original documents. In our view the assessee has been able to demonstrate that due to name change of Taral Vincom to Link Point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd w.e.f. 6.5.2009, the notice u/s 133(6) remained unserved. Besides one day time given for physical production of party was too short. AO has to ascertain the facts and discharge of primary onus on the basis of material available on record after giving adequate opportunity of hearing. He cannot brush aside the entire evidence on the pretext that party is not physically produced more so when it is apparent that it was physically impossible for assessee to ensure production of Kolkata party in one day's short time. Apropos other sundry creditors also we are of the view that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
