TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding as to how the ingredients of section 68 of the Act are satisfied. Section 68 of the Act is a rule of evidence and the onus is on the assessee to establish the source and nature of the credits in question. In the impugned order, CIT(A) has accepted the claim without any verification exercise or opining about the quality of the evidences. In our considered opinion, it would meet the ends of justice, if the matter is sent back to the file of the AO for carrying out the necessary verification exercise and to thereafter decide the same afresh as per law. Needless to say the AO shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and then decide as per law. Thus, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntially explain the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,91,155/- added as disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in reducing the rate of expenses from 30% to 15% and thereby allowing relief to the extent of Rs.93,450/-. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, return declaring income of Rs.34,281/- was filed on 30.09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash credit of Rs.2,90,23,08,000/- and the disallowance made by invoking the provision of section 14A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal against deletion of addition of Rs.44,83,73,000/- as cash credit in respect of Suryamani Financing Company Ltd., adhoc disallowance of expense and disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. 5. Ground No.1 is against the deletion of addition of Rs.44,83,73,000/- added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee failed to substantially explain the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 6. Ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made on account of short term pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aire dated 21.01.2015 at Sr. No. 10 and assessee was required to file confirmation thereof. The appellant in response to the same had duly filed a copy of account of Suryamani Financing company Limited (PAN AADCS5559E) to which an amount of Rs. 44,83,41,000/- had been owed. The confirmation on their behalf was filed along with reply during the assessment proceeding. In the circumstances it is not understood as to what more was required from the appellant to satisfy the AO regarding the genuineness of the transaction of credits as recorded in the balance sheet. It is also seen that no adverse evidence has been brought on record to doubt the submissions of the appellant with regard to the Sundry Creditors. Hence it is held that there is no me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credits in question. In the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the claim without any verification exercise or opining about the quality of the evidences. In our considered opinion, it would meet the ends of justice, if the matter is sent back to the file of the AO for carrying out the necessary verification exercise and to thereafter decide the same afresh as per law. Needless to say the AO shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and then decide as per law. Thus, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground No.2 is against the deletion of addition of Rs.7,91,155/- by invoking the provision of section 14A of the Act. 11. Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of AO. 12. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ 15 % as against 30% made by the Assessing Officer. 16. Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the assessment order. 17. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that the disallowance is purely on adhoc basis and cannot be sustained in view of the judicial pronouncements in this regard. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:- 6.2. I have carefully considered the fact of the case, finding of the assessing officer and the submission of the Ld A.R. In this case the A.O has made disallowance of Rs.l,86,900/- being 30% of the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
