TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, income tax particulars of debenture holders cannot be termed as sufficient evidence. In fact, the receipt of payment and repayment made through banking channels also reveals that the entire addition of ₹ 156.10 was not properly taken into account by the CIT(A) relating to the difference of ₹ 18 crores. Thus, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for further investigation/verification of all the evidences produced by the assessee in respect of 110 parties and accordingly pass the appropriate order by following due process of law. - I.T.A. No. 3126/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2021 - N. K. Billaiya , Member ( A ) And Suchitra Kamble , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : Sush ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly justified in deleting addition of ₹ 1,56,10,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act without recording evidence and reasons for reaching a conclusion that the assessee had actually discharged its onus with regard to creditworthiness of 110 investors even after recording a fact that the assessee could file KYC forms of only 36 investors out of total 110 investors and a fact that 13 investors did not file confirmation and no evidence to prove creditworthiness of 110 investors was filed before tie AO during remand proceedings? 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting addition of ₹ 1,56,10,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act on the basis of paper work like KYC forms of a few investors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us year out of which amounts of ₹ 90 crores and ₹ 40 crores were received from Morgan Stanley India Capital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and M/s. Birla Sunlife Asset Management Company Ltd., Mumbai. But, as far as the other 110 allottees are concerned who have allegedly invested an amount of ₹ 156.10 crores, the assessee company has not submitted details as called for in respect of provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company submitted documents only to establish identity of some persons, but as far as explaining the genuineness of transactions, no information was submitted nor was any person produced. Merely filing of documents to know about the identity of fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmations were filed before the Assessing Officer as well. The Ld. AR submitted that the remand proceedings highlights the genuineness and creditworthiness of those parties and, therefore, the CIT (Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition. The Ld. AR further submitted that these additions cannot be made under Section 68 of the Act. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT (Appeals) without going into the details of the Assessing Officer's remand report has simply deleted the entire addition despite there is a difference which appears prima facie proper in respect of approximately ₹ 18 crores. Thus, the CIT (Appeals) has not at all properl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
