9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overting the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the CIT(A) so as to enable to take a different view in the matter - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2059 /Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2012 - SHRI R.P. YADAV, SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, JJ. Assessee by Shri Rajesh Arora, AR Revenue by Shri Satpal Singh,DR O R D E R A.N.Pahuja:- This appeal filed on 26.04.2011 by the Revenue against an order dated 18.02.2011 of the ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi, raises the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 5 lacs during the financial year and payment was made through cheque no.858141 dated 23.02.2006 for Rs. 5 lacs drawn on ABN Amro Bank. Later bank statements of both the aforesaid concerns were submitted by the AR of the assessee company along with a letter dated 18.12.2008. However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee on the ground that the transactions did not match with the confirmations filed by the share applicants vis- -vis submitted by the assessee company. It was pointed out that the assessee company informed that they had received subscription towards share capital through DDs. Moreover, the credit entry in the PNB a/c of the assessee reflected deposit of cheque no. 134685 dated 02.03.2006 for R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich shows it to be a demand draft. It has been cleared in the appellant's bank account no.4189008700000100 PNB, Panipat on 3.3.2006. The amount has been debited in the bank account no.1165533 ABN Amro Bank in the name of M/s. Melco Sales Pvt. Ltd. Thus though the instrument no.134685 was correctly mentioned but M/s. Melco Sales wrongly stated it to be a cheque and this fact was also wrongly stated in the share application forms. However as the bank accounts of both parties reflect the transaction, it is held that the error in stating the demand draft particulars as cheque particulars is only in the nature of a clerical mistake. As the payment is duly accounted for in the bank statement of both the parties, the error does not have any implic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque whereas it was a demand draft. Photocopy of the demand draft shows the particulars. The bank account no.116557 ABN Amro Bank of M/s. Melco Sales Pvt. Ltd. shows a debit entry of Rs. 10,00,000, out of which Rs. 5 lacs has been issued in favour of the appellant and Rs. 5 lacs in favour of another party. The appellant's bank account no,4189008700000100 PNB, Panipat reflects the credit of Rs. 5 lacs against the demand draft no.135103 on 9.3.2006. It is thus seen that M/s. Melco Sales Pvt. Ltd. wrongly stated the instrument of payment to be cheque whereas it was a demand draft. Though an error crept in the incorrect stating of the nature of instrument, the source of investment however remains totally explained. The amount of Rs. 5 lacs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t shows credit of Rs. 5,00,000 on 22.2.2006, i.e. a day earlier than the date of the issue. Hence the Assessing Officer observed that there was a complete mismatch in both the transactions. From the perusal of the PNB account of assessee company, it would be observed that the instrument no.858141 was issued on 21.2.2006 and not 23.2.2006 and the same was credited in the account of assessee company on 23.2.2006. The bank had wrongly credited the assessee's account on 22.2.2006 which was revered by the bank as can be noted from the bank statements. The instrument was ultimately credited to the account of Assessee Company only on 23.2.2006. However, the Assessing Officer noticed the entry of credit and presumed that there exists mismatch where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer's observation regarding deposit of the instrument on 22.2.2006 in the appellant's bank account reflects observation of only half the facts. The other half regarding the contra entry and subsequent clearing only on 23.2.2006 has been apparently overlooked. In the light of the facts discussed above, it is held that in the case of receipt of Rs. 5 lacs as share application money from M/s. Poonam Corporation Ltd. the appellant has discharged its onus by establishing the identity of the share applicant, the genuineness of the transaction as well as the credit worthiness of the investor. Therefore the addition of RS.5 lacs made by the Assessing Officer as an unexplained cash credit is held to be unjustified. 4.11 Thus in view of the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
