TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration. Accordingly following the reasoning given in our order dated 31.10.2018 in the case of ACIT vs. Piron Education Pvt. Ltd.[2018 (11) TMI 339 - ITAT DELHI], we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition on this account. Addition of unexplained cash deposits - Held that:- The addition is unsustainable as the cash deposited is as per the books of accounts being regularly maintained by the assessee. Since the facts are identical following our order and the reasoning in the above said order we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting this addition and accordingly, this ground is dismissed. Addition on account of unexplained share premium - Held that:- From the balance sheet of the assessee company it is evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member For the Department : Smt. Ranu Mukharjee, Sr. Dr. For the Assessee : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. Ashish Goel, CA Sh. Rishabh Jain, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) -25 Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12 and the assessee has filed the Cross Objection in respect of the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal read as under: 1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in allowing the relief of 50% of the total addition of ₹ 33,09,000/- made by AO on account of bogus e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een confirmed arbitrarily @50% without there being any basis for the same 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition by grossly indulging in surmises and conjectures without there being any direct adverse material against the assessee, based only on suspicion. 4. The respondent craves leave to add amend on alter any of the grounds of cross objection. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, assembly, designing, installation of furniture and also providing architecture services. The assessee has filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring an income of ₹ 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce charges in its income, the same amount cannot be added again. It was agreed by both the learned DR and AR that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts in the case of Piron Education Pvt. Ltd. This entire amount of ₹ 33,09,000/- forms part of the receipt declared by the assessee as its income in the Profit Loss account of the year under consideration. Accordingly following the reasoning given in our order dated 31.10.2018 in the case of ACIT vs. Piron Education Pvt. Ltd.(supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition on this account. In the result ground no. 1 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed and ground no. 2 and 3 of assessee s cross objection is allowed. 6. Ground no. 2 in Revenue s app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of ₹ 19,75,000/- is opening balance coming from the earlier years. The assessee has given explanation to the AO but the AO has not even cared to go through the balance sheet of the assessee company. Before us the Ld. DR could not controvert the above facts. From the balance sheet of the assessee company it is evident that there is no increase in the share capital as well as share premium during the year. Since no amount has been received during the year, the provision of section 68 are not applicable. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute of deleting this addition and accordingly this ground no. 3 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 8. Ground no. 4 in Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s placed on records. Ongoing through the same we find that the contention of the learned AR is correct. The assessee is carrying on regular business and all the expenses have been actually incurred. Further the assessing officer has made the disallowance arbitrarily ignoring the fact that assessee has actually carried out the business. As regard the survey report on going through the assessment order we note that though the assessing officer is making a reference to the survey report but is ignoring the fact that the allegations made are generic and in the light of evidences submitted by the assessee before him how he has ignored the same. It is important to point out that the assessing officer has not rejected the books of accounts nor has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
