TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal, which is the last fact finding authority has recorded that remittances were made on two dates namely 31.05.2007 and 05.06.2007 and both these dates are relevant for A.Y. 2008-09. Net income of the investor was USD 33,12,256 whereas the remittances are only USD 10 Lakhs. There is no other material on record to draw any contrary inference. Therefore, on facts, the Tribunal having recorded as aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere in the Revenue s appeal insofar as first and second questions are concerned. Whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside the addition made ? - The proper course for the AO as held in para 11(ii) of NRA Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. [ 2019 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] was to investigate the credit w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, the investor to determine as to whether the investor was credit worthy? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside addition made under Section 68 of the Act even when assessee Company was unable to submit any supporting documents and as such claim of the assessee was rejected by treating remittance in question as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act resulting in addition of Rs. 4,06,98,779/-? 2. Heard Shri. E.I.Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Smt. H.Vani, learned Advocate for the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are, for A.Y. 2008-09 assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts and transactions were in the nature of inter Bank transfers and accordingly held that it was not a case for the Assessing Officer to invoke provisions under Section 68 of the Act. So far as assessee s challenge with regard to invocation of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act, the CIT(A) held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Revenue challenged CIT(A) s order before ITAT. Assessee also challenged the said order. 5. The ITAT has recorded in para 4 of the impugned order that there were Bank entries dated 31.05.2007 for remittance of USD 1,000,006.53 and dated 05.06.2007 for USD equivalent to INR 4,06,98,779/-. Assessing Officer s specific case is that in view of the loss incurred during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, which is the last fact finding authority has recorded in para 4 of the impugned order that remittances were made on two dates namely 31.05.2007 and 05.06.2007 and both these dates are relevant for A.Y. 2008-09. In para 6 it is recorded that the net income of the investor was USD 33,12,256 whereas the remittances are only USD 10 Lakhs. There is no other material on record to draw any contrary inference. Therefore, on facts, the Tribunal having recorded as aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere in the Revenue s appeal insofar as first and second questions are concerned. The third question is, whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside the addition made. The proper course for the Assessing Officer as held in para 11(ii) of NRA Iro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
