TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the addition of ₹ 20,00,000/- made on estimate basis out of staff welfare and travelling expenses. 3. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts by not deleting the addition of ₹ 61,50,00/- made under section 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained share application money. 4. That the learned CIT (Appeals) did not consider the entire facts submitted in the written submission of the appellant and explanation given during the course of hearing. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts relating to the issues in dispute are that the assessee company executes civil contract filed its return declaring income at ₹ 3,13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the assessee had not been discharged to explain the creditworthiness of the share holders to be held against the assessee. 4. The learned Counsel of the assessee initiating his argument submitted that the learned CIT (A) has confirmed the addition of ₹ 20,00,000 on estimate basis regarding disallowance of expenditure on staff welfare and travelling expenses without having any cogent reasons. The learned Assessing Officer during the course of assessment had disputed the expenditure of ₹ 2,05,98,603 on account of non submission of bills and vouchers. Subsequently, the learned Assessing Officer has restricted the dispute to ₹ 1,27,75,438 ignoring the mess expenses of ₹ 78,23,165/-. Further, out of ₹ 19,25, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income which is ignored by the learned Assessing Officer and for that matter the entire addition under the impugned head is liable to be deleted by the Hon ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Alternatively the addition should have been restricted to 2.81% on the disputed amount of ₹ 1,27,75,438. The learned Assessing Officer has made an addition u/s 68 of the Act regarding the share application money lying with the appellant for the purpose of purchasing shares from the company even though the appellant has given enough evidence regarding the acquisition of the shares by the person as evident from the assessment order vis- -vis appellate order and nowhere the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness on onus discharged by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us and on the basis of submissions, we restrict the disallowance on account of expenses remained unverified by the Assessing Officer totaling ₹ 1.27 Crores to 10% thereof which difference from ₹ 20 lakhs is directed to be given relief to the assessee. This ground is partly allowed. 7. On the second issue, we however find force in the contention of the learned Counsel in so far as once the Assessing Officer has been provided with the names of the share holders it was the Assessing Officer who was to proceed to find their creditworthiness to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law. The learned DR has perused the list of share holders which in his view being agriculturists were holding cash to be made investmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
