9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the AO with respect to unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 57,131/- made by the AO with respect to unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act." 03. The learned Assessing Officer has also raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2016-17, wherein the assessment order passed on 31st March 2022, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] allowed by the learned CIT (A):- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- made by the AO with respect to unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 04. We first look into the facts for A.Y. 2015-16, wherein the fact shows that assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2015, at Rs. 1,33,152/-. This return was processed on 17th October 2015, and was not scrutinized. Sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation and further issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to VVF(India) Limited, which was replied to. The learned Assessing Officer reached at a conclusion that there is a difference in closing balance of bank account of Rs.57,131/-, over and above the discrepancy of Rs.2 crores, and therefore, assessment order under Section 144B read with section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st March, 2022, wherein the addition of Rs.2 crores under Section 69A of the Act on account of advance of Rs.57,131/- of difference in bank statement was made and total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.2,01,90,283/-. 05. Aggrieved with the above assessment order of the assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), wherein the learned CIT (A) decided the above ground as per Para 5.2 to 5.6 as under:- "5.2 I have carefully gone through the grounds of appeal, statement of fact, assessment order passed by the AO and written submission along with documentary evidence uploaded by the appellant. It is a matter of record that the report of investigation was received by the Ld. AO from DDIT (Inv.), Unit3(3), Kolkata. The subject of the said report is "Report in the case of M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting amount of advance received by it and ledger Account of the party. b) On the basis of documentary evidence submitted by appellant learned AO send notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the party i.e. VVF (India) Limited (Godrej Group). In response to the same, VVF(India) Limited (Godrej Group) has filed details as per notice u/s 133(6) of the Act which has been reproduced by learned A.O on para no. 7.2 and page number 7 of the Assessment Order. c) On the basis of documentary evidence submitted by appellant it is seen that appellant has taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- from VVF (India) Limited vide cheque dated 05.03.2015 and the same amount i.e. Rs. 2,00,00,000/- has been invested by the appellant by giving advance against land vide cheque dated 05.03.2015 to Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. d) However, as indicated by the appellant that due to some unavoidable circumstances transaction could not be materialised. Accordingly, appellant has made repayment of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to VVF( India) Ltd. The summary of repayment to M/s VVF (India) is amply reflected in the Bank account of the appellant as under: Sr. No. Date of repayment Amount of repayment 1. 13.06.2015 40, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellant in this. It is not the case of the AO that appellant is indulging in multiple transactions and converting his ill got money to white. 5.3 Section 69A of the Act states that where in any year the taxpayer is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the taxpayer offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, than the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the taxpayer for such year. A bare reading of the section makes it clear that the Ld. AO has wrongly invoked the section for the money receipt is duly recorded in the books of account of the appellant and the appellant also gave explanation of the acquisition of the money over which the AO has no doubt. For invoking provisions of Section 69A, the assessee should be the owner of any mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not denied by the AO that the same money was returned by M/s Outstripe Suppliers Ltd. to the appellant in trenches as evident from the bank accounts details duly submitted by the appellant. It is also accepted by the AO that the appellant had returned the money taken on advance from VVF India Limited. Under these circumstances and in the face of these evidences available on record, the Ld. AO arbitrarily concluded that the money in question is not explained and the appellant is trying to give colour to the entire transaction. 5.6 Therefore, in view of the above facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, the addition made u/s 69A of the Act is unwarranted. Hence, an addition made by the AO as unexplained money u/s 69A of I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- is unjustified and is required to be deleted. Thus, Ground No.4 of the appeal is allowed." 06. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2 crore made by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act, was deleted. Addition of Rs. 57,131/- was also deleted. 07. The learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved and has preferred the above appeal wherein as per ground no. 1 and ground no.2, the above two additions were con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. It is undisputed that assessee recorded these transactions in its books on 5th April 2015 [ FY 2015-16 ] [Ay 2016-17]. This is admitted by the assessee before the LD AO. However, the issue remains is that despite this error whether addition can be made in hands of assessee u/s 69A of the Act. It is not the case that the assessee has not recorded the transaction of Loan taken of Rs 2 Cr and Loan given of Rs 2 Crs. It recorded it in its books of account instead of on 5th March 2015, on 5th April 2015. The Transaction is reflected in the bank statements of the assessee. Both the parties confirmed the above transaction bysubmitting detailsof the loan taken and repaid. These details were submitted before the learned assessing officer along with the details of repayment of loan. Loan taken of Rs 2 Crores from VVF Limited is a Godrej Group company. Loan given to Outstripe suppliers limited was with a purpose of acquiring a plot of land which did not materialize and therefore assessee was repaid by Outsripe suppliers Limited, and assessee repaid it to VVF Limited. The learned assessing officer invoked the provisions of section 69C of the act and held that the assessee is the owner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.2. The learned CIT (A) further noted that in A.Y. 2015-16, the addition of Rs. 2 crores is deleted in the appellate order and therefore, the impugned addition of Rs. 1.70 crores is part of the above sum, hence, the appeal of the assessee was allowed deleing the above addition. The learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal, wherein the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1.70 crores was challenged. 013. Contesting the appeal, the learned departmental representative submitted that this is the part of the same addition made of Rs. 2 crores for assessment year 2015 - 16 wherein a sum of Rs. 1.70 crores has been paid by the assessee to the party from whom the loan was taken and also received by the assessee from the party to whom loan was given. 014. The learned authorized representative supported the order of the learned CIT - A. 015. We have carefully heard the parties and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. The amount of Rs. 1.70 crores is part of the transaction of Rs. 2 crores which was part of the addition of Rs. 2 crores made in A.Y. 2015-16. As we have upheld the order of the learned CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs. 2 crore, we al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
