9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances as the assessee was ultimate beneficiary has taken loan from dubious company M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. where source of fund remain unexplained. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.00 crores u/s 68 of the Act, despite that the assessee has failed to prove the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction which was in turn a accommodation entry from intermediary dubious company M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in ignoring the fact that the source of funds which came as unsecured loans in the assessee company were clearly bogus as has been admitted by the entry operator Sh. Himanshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the written submissions of the assessee Dated 13.04.2016 in the appellate order and deleted the addition by giving the following findings : "7. I have carefully considered the above submissions and find that the following facts are uncontroversial and undisputed : a) That the assessment of AY 2012-13 of M/s Varrenyam Securities Private Limited was framed by DCIT, CC-20, New Delhi (the same AO in the case of the appellant) determining its total income at Rs. 25,11,04,450/- vide his order u/s 143(3) dated 24.03.2015 ; b) That M/s Varrenyam Securities Private Limited is a much bigger company than the appellant company ; c) That the appellant company had t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nity of being heard to the A.O. 5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that at the end of the Order the Ld. CIT(A) have also noted that in preceding A.Y. 2012-2013 an identical matter was considered by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition, on which, the Departmental appeal have been dismissed by the ITAT E-Bench vide Order Dated 12.12.2019, copy of which is placed on record. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, however, could not point out as to whether any findings of fact have been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order pertaining to the assessment year under appeal i.e., 2013-2014. 6. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in preceding A.Y. 2012-2013. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly spell-out that Ld. CIT(A) merely mentioned some facts for preceding A.Y. 2012-2013 and did not give any finding of fact pertaining to A.Y. 2013-2014 for assessment year under appeal. The Ld. D.R, therefore, rightly contended that since the Ld. CIT(A) has not recorded any finding of fact for assessment year under appeal i.e., A.Y. 2013-2014, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above discussion and without deciding the issue on merits, we set aside the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter in issue to his file with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee in accordance with Law by giving reasons for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
