TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f opinion. As the Revenue could not controvert the same. THAT, no incriminating material or documents were found in course of the search or survey action with respect to the allowability or otherwise of the expenditure or interest expenses for any of the years under consideration. In the original assessments framed under s. 143(3) of the Act for asst. yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06, the AO after application of mind and detailed scrutiny of accounts had consciously allowed said expenses and interest On loan. However, later on while framing assessments u/s 144/153C for the said years, under identical circumstances vis-a-vis past, the AO opined that a part of such expenses and interest should have been capitalized to WIP. Accordingly, the same was added back by the AO u/s 144/153C merely on the basis of change of opinion in the guise of search assessment. Hence, CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition. Accordingly, these two common issues of Revenue's appeals in IT(SS)A Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21/Kol/2011 are dismissed. THAT, AO alleged that the assessee company was specifically asked for explanation but had not complied. Thus, the said sum of Rs.,10 lacs was added as inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of accounting followed by assessee company. For this, Revenue has raised common and identically worded grounds, except amount. Following three grounds raised in asst. yr. 2008-09 are being reproduced, as it is and will take facts and figures from this year only and will be decided far all three years on that basis. 1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in both law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 64,83,07,492 on account of undisclosed income arising out of receipt of on-money from various projects. 2. That, in doing so, learned CIT(A) erred in putting emphasis on the project completion method of accounting ignoring the fact that books of account of the assessee company were rejected. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that on-money received in-respect of various project has to be added in the year of receipt. Similarly, assessee has also raised common issues in IT(SS)A Nos. 11 to 13/Kol/2011 in regard to observations of CIT(A) that on-money received by assessee company in respect of its project that the same is to be considered on completion of projects as per method of accounting followed by ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CD-1.FP/CPU/1 Office premises of M/s Fort Projects (P) Ltd. at 59C Chowringhee Road, Kolkata and 297/1A Hazra Road, Kolkata-26 GB/1 to GB/17, GB/CPU/1 During search at the residential premises of Sri Vivek Kumar Kathotia, director of company, documents, computer printouts etc. marked RM/1 to RM/4 were found and seized and papers marked RM 5 containing details of on-money receipts of assessee company in respect of flats in three projects namely (i) 20 Lee Road, Kolkata (ii) 22 Lee Road, Kolkata and (iii) 68 Hindustan Park, Kolkata were also found and seized. On the basis of seized document RM-5 a disclosure of ₹ 9.02 crores was made by assessee, whereas the allegation of assessee was that said seized documents were forcibly manufactured by Department at the time of search and seizure action in case of Sri Vivek Kumar Kathotia and he was forced by search party to write the said seized documents and make an exorbitant disclosure of ₹ 9.02 crores on the basis of the same. In view of search proceedings under s. 132 of the Act and documents found from the director Shri Vivek Kumar Kathotia notices under s. 153C of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following projects: (i) 68, Hindustan Park, Kolkata (ii) 20, Lee Road, Kolkata (iii) 24, Lee Road, Kolkata. The AO while making this addition has held as under: 68, Hindustan Park: When both the relevant documents, viz. impounded document GB/17 (pp. 56 to 57) and the pp. 1 to 3 of the seized document RM/5 are seen together, it is found that the assessee received the highest rate per square foot for the flat No. 4D Sri/Smt. A. Das- the total amount is ₹ 1,18,87,000 for 1,798 sq. ft. of flat. The rate works out to ₹ 6,611 per sq. ft. When the assessee admittedly received such rate from this flat, including on-money, in the project, there is no reason why the same rate was not received in respect of the other flats in the same project. The assessee has not disclosed any on-money in respect of most of the flats. The rates accounted for are different in most of the cases. There is no reason for variation of square foot rate in the same project. As per the details in pp. 56 and 57, the total amount of flat Nos. 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5A, 5B, 5C and 5D, which were allocated to the buyers as well as from which on-money receipts are evidenced by R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69,960 minus (Rs.10,78,60,200 plus ₹ 2,58,40,000} = ₹ 13,60,69,760. In view of the seized documents and the facts as stated above, the books of account of the assessee are not correct and complete and as such the same are rejected and the balance amount of ₹ 13,60,69,760, which has not been accounted for or disclosed, is added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed on on-money receipts in asst. yr. 2008-09. 24, Lee Road Project: When both the relevant documents, viz. impounded document GB/17 (pp. 51 and 52) and the pp. 7, 9 and 10 of the seized document RMJ/are seen together, it is found that the assessee received the highest rate per square foot for the flat No. 6B the total amount is ₹ 2,18,32,000 for total 2,729.ft. of flat. The rate works out to ₹ 8,000 per sq. ft. When the assessee admittedly received such rate from the flat, including on-money, in the project, there is no reason why the same rate was not received in respect of the other flats in the same project. The assessee has not disclosed any on-money in respect of most of the flats. The rates accounted for are different in most of the cases. There is no reason for variation of squa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... projects. Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal against deletion of addition on the basis of project completion method of accounting for reasons that on-money receipts from various projects have to be added in the year of receipt, since books of account were rejected by AO. As against the order of CIT(A), assessee contended that disputed seized document RM/5 was forcibly manufactured by the search party at the time of search and entire alleged on-money receipt of ₹ 9.02 crores mentioned in RM/5 in respect of few flats in these three projects was however offered in entirety by assessee as its income for asst. yr. 2008-09 solely to buy peace and avoid unnecessary dispute. According to assessee, no other evidence, whether documentary or circumstantial, pertaining to receipt of on-money for other flats in these three projects or other projects were found in course of search or survey operation and AO was thus completely unjustified in extrapolating on-money to the balance flats in these three projects merely on the basis of disputed seized loose papers and making an exorbitant addition of ₹ 64.83 crores on the basis of surmises and conjectures. However, assessee contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. We find that the assessee vide letter dt. 28th Dec., 2009 filed before AO, pointed out following defects/inconsistencies in seized documents RM/5 and according to assessee which proved that same were manufactured by search party at the time of search and did not represent actual state of affairs. The relevant details from letter dt. 28th Dec., 2009 are being reproduced as it is: Name as per RM/-5 Whether actual sales made Area as per RM/5 sq.ft. Actual area of flats sq.ft. Smt. A. Das No such sale. Agreement cancelled in April 2006. So the question of receiving any on-money in 2007 did not arise 3,493 Since flat number is not mentioned in RM/5, so actual area is not determinable Smt. N. Kundu No such sale 1,798 Since flat number is not mentioned in RM/5, so actual area is not determinable H. Tated Sales made 2,514 3,422 S. Bachwat No such sale 2,514 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that AO was not justified in extrapolating few stray notings in RM/5 to the balance flats in three projects given that no incriminating evidence pertaining. thereto was found in course of search more so when the authenticity of the subject seized documents, RM/5 was itself challenged by assessee. Since it was presumed by us that assessee was bound by presumption under s. 292C in respect of seized paper RM/5, additions on account of alleged on-money could at best be limited to the seized materials and since assessee had suo motu offered entire on-money in its return of income, no further addition on this count was warranted. We find that Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals have time and again held that assessments cannot be framed merely on extrapolation theory i.e. discrepancies in respect of items must have existed in other years or other instances or projects unless a definite trend of malpractice is conclusively proved by substantial evidence on record. We find that Revenue contended that on-money receipts have to be added in the year of receipt and that CIT(A) erred in putting emphasis on the project completion method of accounting ignoring facts that books of account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghodawat Pan Masala Products (P) Ltd (2001) 170 CTR (Bom) 45: (2001) 250 ITR 570 (Bom) held that for the block assessment period 1984 to 1995 there was no material to indicate that the GP rate of 15 per cent was the basis for entire period. An excessive rate of gross profit was applied to arrive at a conclusion that closing stock was suppressed but Tribunal found that the AO made addition without any material to indicate that the gross profit was @ 15 per cent for entire block period. Hon'ble High Court, discussing facts, held as under: Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, contended that the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition. He contended that during the course of search, stock worth ₹ 1,32,52,685 came to be detected. He further contended that in respect of the period ast April, 1995 upto 27th Sept., 1995, the tentative trading account prepared by the assessee shows that the GP rate applied was 15 per cent and if that rate is taken into account, then the closing stock figure should be ₹ 2,05,90,919 and not ₹ 1,38,14,855. It was urged on behalf of the Department that under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) has to be examined with reference to the material in possession of the assessing authority having nexus to assessment of undisclosed income . If the returns filed did not accord with the materials which were already in the possession of the authority the income could be estimated to the best of his judgment by the assessing authority on the basis of the material in his possession. and Hon'ble High Court held that there was no finding by the AO that the estimate of income was made after consideration of the material that came to light during the course of search and seizure, accordingly, Tribunal was justified in setting aside the best judgment assessment made by AO. 8. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT' vs. C.J. Shah and Co. (2000) 246 ITR 671 (Bom) held that where material is detected after search and seizure operations are carried out, the AO is required to determine the undisclosed income and in such cases additions are based on estimates but in matter of estimation some amount of latitude is required to be shown to AO particularly when relevant documents are not forthcoming. However, Hon'ble High Court observed that it does not mean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when he says that the ITO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a Court of law, but there the agreement ends; because it is equally clear that in making the assessment under sub-s. (3) of s. 23 of the Act, the ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under s. 23(3). The rule of law on this subject has, in our opinion, been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh and Anr. vs. CIT. In this case we are of the opinion that the Tribunal violated certain fundamental rules of justice in reaching its conclusions. Firstly, it did in Seth Gurmukh Singh and Anr. vs. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393 (Lahore)(FB) not disclose to the assessee what information had been supplied to it by the Departmental Representative. Next, it did not give any opportunity to the company to rebut the material furnished to it by him, and lastly, it declined to take all the material that the assessee wanted to produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertaining thereto was found during the course of search and even authenticity of document RM/5 was under challenge. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that Revenue as well as assessee were bound by presumption under s. 292C of the Act in respect of seized papers and addition on account of on-money can be limited to the seized materials. Since assessee himself has offered entire on-money seized as per document RM/5 in its return of income, no further addition can be sustained. We find that the assessee's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal, Pune Bench in the case of Dhanvarsha Builders and Developers (P) Ltd, vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 105 TTJ (Pane) 376: (2006) 102 ITD 375 (Pune) wherein under the given facts, it was held that on-money receipts were assessable in accordance with the method of accounting followed by the assessee irrespective of the date of receipt of the cash. In the said case, consequent upon search and seizure operations conducted upon one of the shareholders of the assessee company, some incriminating documents were found and seized. Subsequently, statement of one of the directors of the assessee company was recorded in which he made decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the identity of the payees of the advance money in cash or the genuineness of the transaction is not proved or that this amount of ₹ 36,17,453 belongs to the assessee itself. The amount received as advance money against the booking of flats is not assessable as income in the hands of the assessee. The profit or loss, as the case may be, shall be determined and is assessable only as and when the flats are sold by the assessee. In the instant case also, as far as the receipts of regular nature i.e. advances received in cheque from buyers are concerned, the AO has not challenged taxability of the same in the years of completion of the projects in accordance with the project completion method of accounting followed by the assessee. The AO has not challenged disclosure of receipts in cheques as 'advances' on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. He has not proposed to tax the same In the year of receipt as in the case of on-money. Thus, in respect of receipts in cheques, AO has accepted project completion method of accounting. Accordingly, we are of the view that AO erred in deviating from the said method of accounting and estimating on-money receipts for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumed to be true unless rebutted by the party claiming contrary. Now, we are of the view that onus of rebutting the presumption under s. 292C of the Act is on the party claiming otherwise, be it assessee or Revenue. In the present case before us, the seized documents RM-1 and RM-2 were found from the possession and control of the assessee. In present case, since seized documents RM/1 and RM/2 were found from possession and control of the assessee during the course of search in his case and by legal fiction, a presumption under s. 292C had to be drawn that the said documents belonged to the assessee and the contents thereof were true unless disproved by cogent evidence. The onus to prove that what was apparent from these books was not real was on the party which claimed it to be so. The Department claimed that the contents of RM/1 and RM/2 found from the possession and control of the assessee in course of search were incorrect. Thus, the onus was on the Department, to bring on record some acceptable evidence to prove that what was stated in the seized documents did not depict the actual state of affairs. The AO and CIT(A) failed to discharge such onus by bringing on record some coge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 11,15,514 in the books of Ramani Projects to KMC 30-3-2006 Cash withdrawn of ₹ 16,00,000 and ₹ 25,00,000 from Andhra Bank belonging to Salasar Mahanirman (P) Ltd. Similarly several other notings pertaining to withdrawal of cash from the regular bank accounts of various companies, payment of cash on account of various properties acquired by various companies duly recorded in the books of those companies etc. were also recorded in RM/1 and RM/2. All these entries were verified from regular books of account and found to be correct and accepted as such by the Department. This also fortifies the fact that RM/1 and RM/2 contained genuine entries of the appellant and were not dumb documents. 16. We further find that Revenue did not make any effort to controvert the correctness of the noting in the seized documents. Revenue, both authorities below, did, not doubt the rates at which gold, diamonds and paintings were purchased and sold by the assessee and were not proved to be unfeasible or impracticable. Lower authorities failed to prove a single instance where sale proceeds of diamonds, gold or paintings actually repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... display in the residence which were also on display in the residence on the date of search. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that RM/1 and RM/2 were a day-to-day account prepared by assessee and discovered as a result of search and the contents therein had to be presumed to be true under s. 292C unless proved otherwise. The CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee that this is not an authenticated document but relied on documents marked GB/12 impounded in course of survey in the premises of M/s Fort Projects (P) Ltd. and the said seized documents contained certain details of unrecorded cash payment on account of acquisition of Salt Lake property. Since RM/1 and RM/2 explaining the source of, acquisition of such property and accounts prepared on the basis of the same were rejected by CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that noting in GB-12 only substantiates/confirms the entries pertaining to investment in property at Salt Lake noted in RM/1 and RM/2. Thus, GB-12 only fortifies the correctness of RM/1 and RM/2 and CIT(A) failed to explain the logic behind relying on one set of seized documents marked GB-12 containing details of unaccounted investment in proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals in IT(SS)A Nos. 11 to 13/Kol/2011 is dismissed. The interconnected issue of Revenue's appeals in IT(SS)A Nos. 19, 20 and 2 l/Kol/2011 is also dismissed. 11. Even we find from the records and arguments of both the sides that there are several mistakes and calculation errors having an impact running into several crores of rupees committed by AO while making the addition of ₹ 64.83 crores, CIT(A) however, while deciding appeal of assessee held that the quantum of undisclosed income on account of alleged 'on-money' and the mistakes pointed out by assessee were irrelevant for the year under consideration since same were to be considered in the years in which the projects were completed. As pointed out by learned counsel that at this stage since there is a Departmental appeal contesting deletion of addition of ₹ 64.83 crores by CIT(A), it would be pertinent to discuss the mistakes committed by the AO while estimating on-money receipts and the method adopted by him for extrapolation. The assessee has pointed out following mistakes in the order of AO in respect of all the flats in 20, Lee Road, over and above on-money receipts of ₹ 2.584 crores mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 246 sq. ft. minus 5,036 sq. ft. minus 2,518sq. ft). Thus the total amount at the alleged rate of 4,995 per sq. ft. works out to ₹ 25,71,92,550 (i.e. 51,490 x ₹ 4,995). In respect of the flats sold, the assessee has accounted for ₹ 9,77,88,200 (i.e. ₹ 13,30,40,200 minus ₹ 2,51,80,000 (Vivek Agarwal) minus ₹ 1,00,72,000 (stock)]. Thus, after reducing the disclosure of ₹ 2,58,40,000 made by the assessee on the basis of RM/5, the additional alleged on-money works out to ₹ 13,35,64,350 (i.e. ₹ 25,71,92,550 minus ₹ 97,78,8,200 minus ₹ 2,58,40,000) as against ₹ 13,60,69,760 wrongly calculated by the AO. Thus, correction of the aforesaid error alone will reduce the addition on account of alleged on-money by ₹ 25,05,410. 24, Lee Road The AO has considered total area of the flats in the aforesaid project at 86,987 sq. ft. Out of this, according to the AO, the total area allocated to landlord is 19,684 sq. ft. Therefore, as per the AO, the area of flats sold in the aforesaid project is 67,303 sq. ft. However, on a perusal of pp. 51 and 52 of GB/17 (reproduced at pp. 6-7 of the assessment order), it may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted during the year under consideration. For this, assessee has raised the following ground No. 5: 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of undisclosed income by way of so-called receipt of on-money on flats in respect of the 'Fort Royal' project of the appellant company completed during the year under consideration at ₹ 39,95,243. Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 15 to 20/Kol/2011 for asst. yrs. 2002-03 to 2007-08 has raised identically worded grounds and the grounds raised in IT(SS)A No. 15/Kol/2011 i.e. 1, 2 and 3 read as under: 1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 11,70,600 solely on the basis of the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. That, in doing so, learned CIT(A) overlooked the facts that additions were made on the basis of documents regarding receipt of on-money found relating to subsequent assessment years and the statement of the director of the company. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) overlooked the fact that additions/estimations can be made in earlier years on the basis of documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,08,240 Oasis Block-4 2006-07 2007-08 9,42,500 27,57,810 37,00,310 Oasis Block-5 2005-06 2007-08 8,13,780 97,00,069 1,05,13,849 Oasis Block-7 2007-08 11,56,890 11,56,890 Before CIT(A) assessee argued that Ramani Project, Fort Point, Block-1 and Block 2, Tower-I and Tower-2 did not belong to the assessee company and as such, no addition could be made in the hands of assessee, as AO failed to appreciate that Ramani Project belonged to Ramani Projects (P) Ltd., Fort Point belonged to Balaji Grih Nirman (P) Ltd, and Tower-I and II, Block-I and 2 belonged to partnership firm M/s Fort Builders which were companies/partnership concerns distinct from assessee-company. Accordingly CIT(A) after verification of aforesaid facts deleted additions aggregating to ₹ 3,57,44,734 made in respect of Ramani Project, Fort Point, Tower 1 and 2 and Blocks 1 and 2 for the respective years as pertaining to separate taxable entities. Departmental ground challenging deletion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee contended that there could be difference on account . of different variables like location, time of booking, mode of payment, market fluctuations, extra fittings etc, hence, he held that AO was not justified in charging highest rate as base rate for making estimation and rejected books of account and arbitrarily estimated profit of the project @ 6 per cent of the total expenditure. CIT(A) worked out undisclosed income from the said project at ₹ 39,95,243. He thus made an addition of ₹ 39,95,243 as alleged undisclosed profit from Fort Royal project for asst. yr. 2007-08 as against ₹ 52,06,392 estimated by the AO for the said project for asst. yrs. 2003-04 and 2006-07. 14. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that assessee has challenged addition of ₹ 39,95,243 made by CIT(A) for asst. yr. 2007-08 on account of estimated undisclosed profit for Fort Royal project. As shall be clearly evident from facts on record, this addition is not based on any incriminating evidence discovered as a result of search in respect of receipt of on-money for Fort Royal project or any of aforesaid projects. The CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,550 1,000 16,00,000 Bishnu Kr. Dhandhania 9B 26-4-2005 20-3-2005 1,100 1,000 1,100 11,00,000 The fifth schedule work was done by the buyers and not by the appellant company due to which lower prices were offered to them Comparison-3 Party's name Flat No. Agreement date Area (sq.ft.) Rate per sq.ft. (Rs.) Consideration (Rs.) Remarks Mualidhar VC 9C/D 11-4-2005 2650 918 24,35,000 The said flat was sold at lower rate since the buyer was high ranking police officer and in terms of benefits arising on account of security etc. of the project, the appellant deemed It fit to sell flat at lower rates. In view of the above explanation, we are of the view that decision to sell a particular flat at a particular price was taken out of commercial expediency and on valid grounds and cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been capitalized as work-in-process. The year-wise details of additions made by the AO are as under; Particulars of addition A.Y. 2002-03 A.Y. 2003-04 A.Y. 2004-05 A.Y. 2005-06 A.Y. 2006-07 A.Y. 2007-08 A.Y. 2008-09 Total Disallowance of interest paid 461,882 793,619 736,559 - 1992060 Expenditure disallowed 174,249 187,841 234,450 180,728 342,548 434,417 1400,743 2954976 The assessee contended that it is following completed project method of accounting, wherein profits on sale of residential and commercial units is recognized only when the work in respect of project is completed. The cost incurred and payments received while project is in progress are accumulated and carried forward as work-in-progress (WIP) under inventori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that Revenue could not bring anything or make any argument that there is fault in the order of CIT(A). We find that search action in the group case or the survey action in this case did not lead to discovery of any incriminating evidence whatsoever in respect of asst. yrs. 2002-03 to 2006-07 and as such completed assessments for such year could not be disturbed and items of regular assessments could not be added back in assessments framed under s. 153C of the Act. Thus, entire assessment orders framed under s. 144/153C for the said years making exorbitant additions in the hands of the assessee company on these issues is without any basis. Further, as discussed above, in the instant case, no search was conducted, proceedings under s. 153C were initiated against the assessee on the basis of one set of documents marked RM/5 seized from the premises of one of its directors. However, no incriminating material or documents were found in course of the search or survey action with respect to the allowability or otherwise of the expenditure or interest expenses for any of the years under consideration. In the original assessments framed under s. 143(3) of the Act for asst. yrs. 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had obtained accommodation entry in the form of loan. There was no justification on the part of AO to make addition only on the basis of certain enquiry made in respect of third party without bringing on record any cogent evidence to prove that assessee had taken accommodation entry. The AO's allegation that unaccounted money earned by assessee had been brought back to business by way of bogus unsecured loan which was not sustainable in the absence of any material on record to the said extent. The assessee had duly proved the nature and source of loan by documentary evidences and AO had held it unsatisfactory without bringing on record any contrary material. As such no addition could be made under s. 68. Aggrieved against findings of CIT(A), now Revenue is in appeal before us. 20. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that assessee company had in fact received a loan of ₹ 10,00,000 from Toplight Vinimay (P) Ltd. which is duly assessed to tax under PAN AABCT 2411L. In support of the aforesaid, assessee submitted following evidences in its paper book: (i) Acknowledgement of filing return of income for asst. y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
