TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst provisions of law which is liable to be set aside. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made of ₹ 8,25,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the department has clearly established that these transactions were accommodation entries and the genuineness and creditworthiness of the persons could not be proved. 3. On the fats and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 16,500 made on account of unexplained experience. 2. Ground no.1 is general and need not be adjudicated. 3. Apropos Ground no.2, as per the assessment order, a report on enquiries made by the Direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and did not reflect anything in genuine business had being transacted; that the bank statement of M/s Jewel Commercial P. Ltd. in A/c No.CA-2401 maintained with Vijaya Bank, Ansari Road, New Delhi revealed that there was an immediate credit entry of ₹ 3 lakhs in the said account on 8.12.2008, when the credit balance in the said account was merely ₹ 5183; that only after this credit entry had been made on identical amount of ₹ 3 lakhs was paid to the assessee company; that further there was an immediate credit entry of ₹ 1631460 on 13.12.2000 in the said bank account and on 14.12.2000, this amount was disbursed to three entities; that an amount of ₹ 2 lakhs had been shown to have been cleared on the said date; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Prasad More, 72 ITR 807(SC) 3. 107 ITR 938 (SC) 4. 2010 TIOL HC(Del.) 649 (AT) For the proposition that the transaction being mere cheque transactions do not absolve the assessee, Ld.DR has placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Decision of the B Bench of the Tribunal dated 31.12.2009 in the case of Dhingra Global. 2. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. vs. CIT, 305 ITR 202 (Del.) 3. 210 CTR 185 (P H) .(page no. incorrect) 4. CIT vs. Kundan Investment Ltd., 263 ITR 626 (Cal.) 5. Beautex (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, 34 SOT 465 (Del.) Ld.DR also relied on the following decisions in this regard: 1. Mangilal Jain vs. ITO, 315 ITR 105 (Mad. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmodation entries. It has not been shown as to how the two parties concerned were not creditors to the assessee. Once they are not established to be creditors, operation of section 68 of the I.T. Act does not come into play. No material was brought by the AO to prove that the money was the assessee s own undisclosed income. It was merely that the information received from the Inv. Wing of the department was relied on, without verification of the facts qua-the-assessee. The assessee successfully explained the entries. 9. In view of the above, none of the case laws relied on by the department is applicable, since there is no applicability of section 68 of the Act, as parties concerned were not creditors of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
