9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the appeals hence the same have heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. First, we take up Revenue's appeal ITA No.65/GTY/2020 for assessment year 2013-14. The Revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Law and in facts in deleting the additions of Rs.3,06,50,000/- made u/s 68 when the assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove the credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction of the creditors M/s Renovate Marketing Private Limited which is shell/paper company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Appellant was borrowed from the Investigation Wing. Any notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of borrowed satisfaction is bad in law and, consequentially, the ensuing proceedings are bad in law." 5. The ld. counsel has submitted that the Revenue has not raised any ground against the aforesaid findings of the CIT(A) holding that the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 was bad in law. That the Revenue has contested the addition only on the merit and not on the legal point, therefore, the legal point decided by the CIT(A) has remained uncontested. Even if the appeal of the Revenue is allowed on merits, yet the very assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 has been held bad i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted by him." 9. A perusal of the above findings of the CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has given a clear-cut findings that the Assessing Officer did not examine the transaction, in question, independently rather solely relied upon the report of the Investigation Wing in making the impugned addition, whereas, the assessee has duly discharged its primary onus by furnishing the relevant details and evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. A perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(A) reveals that the ld. CIT(A) has thoroughly discussed the facts of the case and relied upon various decisions of higher courts. 10. The ld. DR could not rebut the above findings of the CIT(A). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A). 14. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. The appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.65/GTY/2020 is hereby dismissed. 15. Now, coming to the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.66/GTY/2020 for assessment year 2014-15. The Revenue in this appeal has taken the identical Ground No.2 as taken in ITA No.ITA No.65/GTY/2020 for assessment year 2013-14, whereby, the Revenue has contested the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in respect of loan transaction from M/s Renovate Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Since the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical and in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
