TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than High Court in the case Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. ACIT (2005 (8) TMI 67 - RAJASTHAN High Court ) . Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is upheld.- Decided against revenue Addition on unexplained share capital - Held that:- The assessee discharged its primary onus in respect of addition by filing the copies of share application forms, GIR numbers and wards of the shares subscribersthe assessee discharged its primary onus in respect of addition of ₹ 3.30 lacs by filing the copies of share application forms, GIR numbers and wards of the shares subscribers. - Decided against revenue Addition on unrecorded investment / expenses noticed in seized document - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,18,927/-out of addition of ₹ 1,42,677/- made by the AO on account of unrecorded investment / expenses noticed in seized document without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not give any satisfactory explanation of these documents. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1, the facts of the case are that the assessee company sold some machinery which was held by it as its assets amounting to ₹ 1.20 lacs. The sale proceeds were received by cheques. According to the AO, the Ex-Director of the company i.e. Shri K.C. Mittal could not respond to the enquiry properly. The AO held the sale of machinery as bogus and made the addition. 2.2 In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:- 2.2 On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief which is as under:- 4.3. I have considered the facts of the case, as well as, the evidence placed on record. The Assessing Officer has mentioned in the order that confirmation has been filed from all such persons and the appellant has also filed computation sheets, acknowledgement for filing of returns along with GIR nos. for eight persons although the said confirmations are for assessment year 1992-93. This shows that these eight persons were assessed to tax and their particulars and address were available to the Department. However, the Ld.AO has not made any efforts to find out the real investor. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. has held that once confirmation letter was receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this regard and it has been pointed out by him that the appellant company has received application from 12 persons for allotting shares of the company and Photostat copies of the share application forms as well as confirmations from all the parties along with their GIR numbers and Wards were furnished before the Assessing Officer. These copies are again enclosed and from the perusal of the same it is observed that complete details regarding cheque number, GIR number, address etc. have duly been given in the said forms. It was, therefore, mentioned that the burden placed on the appellant company stood discharged and no addition is possible in the hands of the company. The appellant has also relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble Delhi High Court in Steller Investments, which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 251 ITR 263, the appellant has discharged the burden placed upon it and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of ₹ 3,30,000/- to the income of the appellant. The addition of ₹ 3,30,000/- is therefore, deleted. The appellant gets a relief of ₹ 3,30,000/- in respect of this ground. 5.1 Apropos Ground No.4, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in para 7.3 of his order narrate all the facts and reasons for giving relief which is as under:- 7.3 The appellant had provided copies of papers at page no. 51,52, and 53 and from the perusal of the same, it is seen that pages no. 51,52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the GRs bear the stamp of Municipal Council, Kishangarh. The ld. CIT(A) has given an appropriate findings of fact that the machinery was sold by the assessee. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the Ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 9.1 Apropos Ground No. 2, the relief of ₹ 59,000/-in respect of addition u/s 68 of the Act has been given verifying the returns filed by the creditors and by relying on the judgemnet of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. ACIT , (2006) 283 ITR 377. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is upheld. Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
