9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income on 25.09.2012 declaring Nil income. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) on 29.03.2015 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.3,65,00,000/-, inter alia, making an addition of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act being share application money received on the ground that the same is unexplained cash credit and further an amount of Rs.3,15,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act as cash credit being loan received from K.G. Constructions, on the ground that the same is unexplained cash credit. 3. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate authority deleted both the additions. 4. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT-DR on behalf of the Revenue and Mr. Abh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confuses things rather than clarifying why the addition was made. I don't see any basis for the A.O' action of addition of the share application money. He has not collected materials to support its findings. Thus, the other part of the ground no.2 challenging the addition of share capital is also allowed." 7. The ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert these factual findings. In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of Revenue. 8. Regarding the addition of Rs.3,15,00,000/- being loan taken from K.G. Construction, we find that the ld. CIT(A) after producing the letter of M/s K.G. Construction dated 13.02.2015 at Page No.9 of his order and giving a finding that some of the papers are apparently missing from as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Having regard to the papers furnished by the appellant in early stages of assessment, the reply of K.G. Construction confirming the transaction and its identity by furnishing copies of several relevant documents and also considering the fact that insistence on personal appearance of Directors of K.G. Construction was suddenly raised in the last half of March, 2015, I get the impression that the A.O was looking for some excuse to make some addition. The A.O did not show any inclination to examine the partners of K.G. Construction in early stage of assessment proceedings or at least before reasonable length of time from the time barring dead line. I, therefore, hold that the A.O had no reasonable basis to make addition of loans claimed to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
