TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact by deleting the addition of ₹ 63,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit when the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions have not been satisfactorily established. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact by admitting fresh evidence in contravention to the provisions of Rule 46-A while deciding the addition of ₹ 63,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact by deleting the disallowance of loss of ₹ 3,30,225/- in trading of textiles when the assessee has failed to attribute any reason to incurring of such losses. 4. That the appellant crav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he accounts of the applicants and in some case have also recorded that the applicants had sold some of their shares. It was the submission that the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the transactions in view of the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT, Kolkata-III vs M/s. Dataware Private Limited dated 21st September, 2011 in GA No.2856 of 2011 as also the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) LTd. 216 CTR 195 (SC). The order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of the share application money as made by the AO was liable to confirmed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the assessment order that the assessee has placed before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance by holding that the transactions were through account payee cheques and the assessee was regularly involved in the transaction of the purchase and sale of textiles and it was no business of the AO to guide a businessman on how to run his own business. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 8. In reply the ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the assesee had filed the details of purchase and sale of textiles. The AO has made the disallowance on the ground that no explanation was filed regarding the loss incurred. It was the submission that the transaction is not disputed nor its ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
