TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that AO has not made any substantive assessment. There may be substantive assessment without any protective assessment, but there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. Keeping in view all we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No. 4227/DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2017 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Department by : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIII, New Delhi dated 23.05.2014 pertaining to Assessment Year 2005-06 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,17,67,951/- made on account of unexplained credits u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. 2. The appellant craves leave for add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing of this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 23.05.2014 has deleted the addition and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 5. On the contrary, Ld. A.R. of the Assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed and adjudicated the issue in dispute vide para no. 2.1 at page no. 5 to 11. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- 2.1 I have carefully perused the facts of the case and the detailed submissions made by the counsel of the appellant. The facts denoted in the assessment order reveal that the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 3,17,678,951/- on protective basis u/s. 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer accepted the fact that the appellant is acting as the entry operator. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for his specific comment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eas Pvt. Ltd 1100000.00 1100000.00 Zars Trading Pvt. Ltd. 400000.00 400000.00 Investwell Securities Pvt. Ltd. 500000.00 500000.00 Afroshaster Mercants Pvt. Ltd. 910000.00 -- Aggregate Finance Inve. P ltd. 5665000.00 ~ -- Genius Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 3500000.00 -- Hareram Restaurents Pvt. Ltd. 1100000.00 -- Meghna Towers Pvt. Ltd. 1050000.00 -- Rajat Chits Pvt. Ltd. 700000.00 -- Subham Electricals Pvt. Ltd 1150000.00 - - Swastik Propbuilrl Pvt. Ltd. 500000.00 -- Others 13440000.00 10301150.00 50401000.00 19907150.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1484000.00 SAR Finance Investment P Ltd 750000.00 750000.00 VS Capital Services P Ltd. 570000.00 570000.00 Nishtika Investment Fin. Pvt Ltd. 800000.00 800000.00 Rosmik Finlease Ltd 150000.00 150000.00 Chintan Securities Fin. Ltd. 650000.00 . 650000.00 .ABO Investment Pvt. Ltd . 1960000.00 560000.00 Flnwiz Capital Services Pvt. Ltd 4850000.00 450000.00 G G Pharma (I) Ltd 450000.00 450000.00 Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd 1100000.00 1100000.00 Zars Trading Pvt. Ltd. 400000.00 400000.00 Investwell Securities Pvt. Ltd. 500000.00 500000.00 Afroshaster Mercants Pvt. Ltd. 91 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
