9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of unexplained investment in shares which was duly certified by the auditor." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer vide his assessment order dated 18.12.2009, processed under sections 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), noted that the assessee company made an investment amounting to Rs.33,96,250 pertaining to 97500 shares in M/s Two Brothers Filament Pvt. Ltd. and the same appeared to be an unexplained investment and escaped from the assessment. The AO reopened the assessment following due procedure and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee submitted that the return filed earlier may be treated as a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined in the assessment order and submissions made by the appellant. I have also perused the assessment record for the concerned year. I find that no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer while making the addition of Rs.33,96,250/- as unexplained investment u/s 69. The addition has been made solely on the grounds of differing notes in Notes to Accounts accompanying the accounts for year ending 31.3.2001 and 31.3.2002. In the accounts for year ending 31.3.2001 the auditor has given the note "Six lacs shares of Rs.10/- each fully paid up in Two Brothers Filament Ltd. amounting to Rs.209 lacs (Previous Year Rs.4.00 lacs)", whereas in the accounts for year ending 31.3.2002 the auditor has given the note "6,97,50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njustified and supporting the action of the AO. 6. At the outset, we noted that in this appeal by the Revenue, a notice was duly served upon the assessee-respondent for the date of hearing i.e. 24.5.2012, but neither the assessee nor any representative appeared before us during the hearing. Looking into the grounds of appeal and findings of the authorities below, we find it just and proper to proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material placed before us after hearing the ld. DR and, accordingly, we are adjudicating the same. 7. Ld. DR submitted that the assessing officer rightly added the sum of Rs.33,96,250 as unexplained investment as shown in the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. The AO noticed, as per Notes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) rightly held that the assessee appellant has explained that the difference in Notes to Accounts was noticed only because of typographical error and no fresh investment was made during the relevant year as the assessee succeeded in categorically confirming that no new or additional shares were acquired during the F.Y. 2001-02. The ld. CIT(A) also rightly held that the assessing officer has not brought any substantial detail or documentary or other evidence to rebut the fact that the difference noted in Notes to Accounts was only because of typographical error and on the other hand, the audited accounts of the assessee show that there was no change in the figure of investment as per Balance Sheet dated 31.3.2001 and 31.3.2002 and there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
