TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-decide the appeal of assessee in accordance with Law by giving reasons for decision in appellate order based on the evidences on record in the light of finding of fact recorded by the A.O, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the A.O - Appeal of Revenue allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA.No.3863/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2020 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA And Shri Sumit Goel, C.A. For the Revenue : Ms. Salini Verma, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi, Dated 25.04.2016, for the A.Y. 2013-2014, on the followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry provided by various entities controlled by Shri S.K. Jain and Shri V.K. Jain and Investigation conducted by Investigation Wing of the Department. The A.O. has given an opportunity to the assessee to prove creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction and required the assessee to produce Director Shri Kishore Kumar Munzal, Director of M/s. Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., and Shri Atul Khandelwal, C.A. who has arranged the funds in the matter. The case was adjourned to 30.12.2015. However, both the above persons were not produced. The A.O. after considering the fact that burden is upon the assessee to prove the ingredients of Section 68 of the I.T. Act i.e., identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same AO vide his order u/s 143 (3) dated 24.03.2015, in the assessment year 2012-13. 7.1. In view of the above facts about which there is no dispute, I hold that the Assessing Officer was not at all justified in including the sum of ₹ 2.00 Crores in the Total Income of the appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus the aforesaid addition of ₹ 2.00 Crores is accordingly deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 4. The Ld. D.R. at the outset contended that the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and without giving any reasons for the decisions, she has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any finding with regard to ingredients of section 68 of the I.T. Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced above has merely referred to the facts noted in the preceding A.Y. 2012-013 with regard to loan transaction between the assessee and the Investor company. Merely because loan is repaid through banking channel in assessment year by itself may not be a ground to delete the addition because ultimately assessee shall have to prove the ingredients of Section 68 of the I.T. Act to the satisfaction of the A.O. According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order while deciding the appeal. The impugned findings of the Ld. CIT(A) however clearly show that he did not mention the evidence and material on record in the light of finding of fact arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
