9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved in all these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 5573/DEL/2016 2. The only grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 crore made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained income u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during search and survey operations conducted at various premises of Mauria Udyog Ltd, incriminating documents relating to transactions undertaken by the group with Amrapali Group of companies were seized. One such document which was a .xls file was extracted from Annexure A-2 Party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made by different Amrapali Group companies to Mauria group company. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the case is squarely covered u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly, made an addition of Rs. 1 crore. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A), drawing support from the decision given by him in the case of M/s Bihari Ispat Udyog Ltd in Appeal No. 23/16-17, deleted the addition. 6. Before us, the ld. DR pointed out that the appeal in the case of M/s Bihari Ispat Udyog Ltd [supra] has been dismissed by the Tribunal for want of tax effect. 7. Before us, the ld. Counsel vehemently stated that though the additions have been made u/s 69A of the Act, the said provisions are not at all applicable to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y establish that the provisions of section 69A of the Act do not apply. We agree with the contention of the ld. AR that the foundation itself is weak and the addition should not survive. However, the Assessing Officer made the addition on the strength of the statement of Shri Rohtash wherein he has admitted that Rs. 1 crore has been received. Exhibit 85 of the paper books reveals that on the date of receipt of the impugned amount, the same was returned back to Amrapali Group by M/s Bihariji group. The entries of Rs. 50 lakhs each on 11.12.2012 and 01.02.2013 can be seen from the said Exhibit 85 of the paper book. This means that the date on which the alleged Rs. 1 crore was received, on the very same day the same was returned back. 11. Mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by the assessee. After analysing the sale transaction, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 6 crores that has been introduced as sale of shares is nothing but assessee's own unaccounted money and invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, made the impugned addition. 18. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and vehemently stated that Rs. 6 crores is the sale consideration of the shares of M/s Nexus Comosales Pvt Ltd and M/s Linkwise Marketing Ltd and, therefore, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 19. After considering the facts and submissions, the CIT(A) observed as under: "4.2:5 Further, on perusal of the facts of the case it is observed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier in this order, and I do not find anything adverse so as to conclude that the source of the money utilized by PCPL, DMPL & SHPL for payments to MUL was in fact the unaccounted money of MUL. Even on consideration of the status of the impugned shares of NCPL and LMPL post sale by MUL, the shares were delivered to SHPL, PCPL & DMPL and if any adverse inference on material evidence was necessitated it was to be considered in the hands of PCPL, DMPL & SHPL. Besides, from the assessment order it is apparent that the initial purchase of shares by MUL from NCPL & LMPL and source thereof have not been questioned by the AO and have apparently been accepted by the AO, and even if it is considered that the sale transactions were bogus and the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant/appellant's AR as mentioned above cannot be considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of the provisions of s.68 of the Act or the first Proviso to s.68 of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The conclusion of the AO to treat the advances/sale proceeds of the shares as "cash credits" is misconceived, and the addition made on this account is not sustainable. I hold accordingly. The addition made on this account is therefore deleted." 20. Before us, the ld. DR could not point out any factual error in the findings of the CIT(A). There is no dispute that the purchase of shares of the aforesaid companies has been accepted by the Assessing Officer. Assuming, yet not accepting that the sale consideration is bogus, then the question whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
