TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue, by aforesaid order of CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. . [ 2015 (11) TMI 279 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and in the case of Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. [ 2020 (12) TMI 124 - ITAT DELHI] . Sr. DR for Revenue also did not dispute the legal contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee, that proviso to section 68 of IT Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01/04/2013 had no application for Asst. Year 2012-13 to which this appeal pertains. Further, loss in the hands of IL FS is duly explained by the contention made from the assessee s side that IL FS, as a Venture Capital Fund, did not sell investments in sufficient quantities in Asst. Year 2012-13 and 2013-14; which was not disputed by Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue. Thus we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO erred in taking an adverse view regarding creditworthiness of IL FS and regarding genuineness of transaction of the assessee with IL FS. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the aforesaid addition. - ITA No. 3426/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2022 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. Manuj Sabharwal, Sh. Nakul Sehgal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.99,88,082/-, an amount of Rs.49,99,559/- was received in previous year relevant to assessment year 2011-12 and Rs.50,00,441/- was received in previous relevant to assessment year 2012-13. In the aforesaid impugned assessment order dated 20/02/2015, the Assessing Officer observed that the entire receipts from IL FS were shown as closing balance in the books of IL FS. The Assessing Officer took the view that the creditworthiness of IL FS remained unproved because IL FS has shown losses in return of income pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 29/03/2016, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee s appeal holding that the assessee failed to discharge onus of creditworthiness. Aggrieved again, the assessee filed this present appeal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 29/03/2016. In the course of appellate proceedings, the following papers were filed from the assessee s side: (a) Paper book consisting of the following particulars. Sr. No. Particulars 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the assessee vide assessment order dated 24/03/2022 passed by the Assessing Officer himself in the subsequent assessment year. i.e., Asst. Year 2015-16, in which no adverse view was taken in respect of the fresh amount of Rs.53,82,200/- received by the assessee from IL FS by way of share application/share premium. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the entire aforesaid amount of Rs.99,88,082/- was duly reflected in the accounts of M/s IL FS and it was of no relevance that the amount was shown as closing balance in the books of IL FS. He further submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.99,88,082/- appeared in the books of the IL FS as an asset, which was sufficient to show that this amount was duly accounted for in the books of IL FS. He submitted that the details of shares allotted on 01/04/2011 and 23/07/2011 against the entire aforesaid amount received from IL FS were furnished to the AO and were available on record. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that full details of the investment made by IL FS in the share company was shown in the balance sheet of IL FS as on 31.03.20212; and that source of funds in respect of IL FS was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Year 2012- 13 (to which this appeal pertains) in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.49,99,559/-. In support of this contention, he relied on CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan). (C.2) The Ld. Senior Department Representative for Revenue relied on orders of lower authorities. However she failed to controvert the submissions and contentions of Ld. Counsel for assessee, referred to in foregoing paragraphs (C) and (C.1) of this order. She also did not dispute the legal contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee, that proviso to section 68 of IT act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f., 01/04/2013 had no application for Asst. Year 2012-13 to which this appeal pertains. (C.2.1) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid amount of Rs.99,88,082/- received by the assessee is duly reflected in the Balance Sheet of IL FS as investment. There is also no dispute that the transaction between the assessee and IL FS received clean chit in internal report of Income Tax Department vide aforesaid F. No. DIT (I C.I)/Chd/2018-19/3037 dated 08/03/2019. It is further not in dispute that no adverse view was taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
