9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these two appeals, ITA No. 305/JP/2014 is in respect of quantum proceedings and ITA No. 213/JP/2017 is respect of penalty proceedings. We, first take up the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 305/JP/2014. The revenue has raised the following modified solitary ground filed on 24.05.2017 : " That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,80,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act made by the AO on a/c of advance against equity capital received from M/s. Ratana Commercial enterprises (P) Ltd. without verifying the creditworthiness and genuineness of the source." 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.80 crore received from M/s. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the same. Against this, both the revenue and assessee have filed appeal and cross objection respectively. 3. In revenue's appeal, the only effective ground is against deletion of addition of Rs. 6.80 crores as made by the AO on account of advance received from M/s. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 3.1. The ld. D/R vehemently argued that ld. CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition. He supported the order of the AO on this issue. 3.2. On the contrary, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company is a public limited company. Company was declared as ' Sick ' by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities below. The ld. CIT (A) has decided the issue by observing as under :- " 9.5. I have perused the assessment order, remand report as well as submissions made by the appellant and find the addition of Rs. 6.80 crores was made by the AO on account of failure on the part of appellant to furnish any evidence. In the course of appellate proceedings, the evidence filed by the appellant was forwarded to the AO for examination. The AO in his report has accepted the fact that complete evidence was filed and there is no justification in making the said addition. Accordingly, I delete the addition of Rs. 6.80 crores made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act on account of advances received from M/s. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l grounds of cross objection and relevant documents are separately attached. 5. That the respondent craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of cross objection on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal. 5. Ground no. 1 is against confirmation of addition under section 68 of the Act of unsecured loan of Rs. 80,00,000/-. 6. Ground No. 2 is in support of the order of ld. CIT (A) which does not require adjudication. 7. Ground No. 3 is against initiation of penalty proceedings. The same being premature, needs no adjudication. 8. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 are general in nature. 9. The only effective ground in the Cross Objection is against addition made and sustained under section 68 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ledger of the Creditors produced as additional evidence, wherein, the amount has been shown as deposited in State Bank of India Account. It is a basic concept of the Double Entry System that if amount is credited in the Ledger of Mr. Rajesh Gupta showing debiting State Bank of India means the corresponding entry is entered into the State Bank of India. It is clear that if books are verifiable and bank balances are acceptable then how doubt on other part of an entry can be raised. Under the facts being the existing shareholders, the creditworthiness of the creditors are admittedly accepted by the Department and genuineness of the transaction is further proved by the fact that Ledger shown the receipt from bank and balance of the bank ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and decide this issue de novo. The Cross Objection is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA NO. 213/JP/2017 (Assessee ): 10. Now we take up the penalty appeal of the assessee. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. Impugned order(s) passed u/s. 250/271(1)(c) are bad in law and on facts being against the principal of natural justice and for many more other reasons. 2. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A), Alwar has erred in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 24,72,000/- imposed by DCIT, Circle-2, Alwar, without appreciating the material facts of the case. The penalty imposed/sustained by ld. AO/CIT (A) is illegal, excessive or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
