9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in AY 2008-09 and Rs. 2.30 crores in AY 2013-14. Facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the years hence, we will take the facts from AY 2008-09 and adjudicate the issue. The grounds raised in AY 2008-09 by Revenue read as under: - "Ground in AY 2008-09 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- made under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of loans received from M/s Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. whereas the company was found bogus not only by the department by other agencies also? Ground in AY 2013-14 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- made by the AO with respect to unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 without appreciating the fact that the credit entries standing against the name of M/s Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. were not reflected in the books of account of M/s Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd as the said company had claimed to have not done any business activity during the period of relevant to AY 2013-14." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer has also not disputed that appellant has made payments to BMPL in FY' 2007-08 (AY 2008-09) and FY 2008-09 (AY 2009-10). Essentially, the Assessing Officer has held the impugned amount as accommodation entry- because he observed that the appellant had a running account with BMPL Further, he has held the receipt as income u/s. 28(iv). Finally, without invoking any particular section of the Act, the Assessing Officer has also concluded that the amount is income from unexplained sources. 5 2 2 These facts strongly indicate that the Assessing Officer was largely influenced by the history of the case and not by any facts. It is difficult to understand that once the impugned sum is taken as a value of any benefit or perquisite" u/s. 28(iv) received by the appellant from BMPL how then could it be considered as income from unexplained source? Similarly, if it is income from "unexplained source' how then can it be deemed income received from BMPL in exercise of business or profession of the appellant? As already observed, the Assessing Officer has not raised any doubt about the identity. creditworthiness or the fact of the transaction so even provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst order u/s 143(3) for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10. The nature of transactions, the non-completion of enquiries and the observations of the assessing officer in the assessment orders are similar and stereotype. to those in the instant appeal In order passed by my Ld. Predecessor in appeal No. CIT(A)-8/IT-68/14-15 dated 29.11.2016 for AY 2006-07, he has examined in detail applicability of section 68 on similar facts and circumstances and relied on several case laws for arriving at a decision. In the appellate order passed by my Ld. Predecessor in appeal No. CIT(A)-8/lT-600/12-13 dated 29.11.2016 for AY 2007-08, he had even observed: ln the instant case, not only did the appellant discharge its onus of establishing identity and creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transactions, the assessing officer has admitted that all the balances were very old It is settled law that such old balances cannot be added u/s 66 for the current year". 3.1.6 Since the facts and circumstances are the same for this assessment year. except for the amount involved, following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai for assessment year 2008-09, CIT(A)-20, Kolkata and considering the reasoning of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue." 7. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case. As the issue is covered, the same was pointed out to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative. He fairly conceded that the issue is covered in favour of assessee. Hence, taking this issue as covered, we confirmed the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition in both the years. 8. The next issue in AY 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 3,25,520/- in its bank account. For this Revenue has raised the following ground No.2: - "2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,25,520/- as unexplained income from undisclosed source made by the AO without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to establish the trail of cash withdrawn and deposited from and to its bank accounts and also failed to furnish detailed entry wise cash book for the period relevant to AY 2008-09?" 9. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
