9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,970/- out of total addition of Rs. 8,970/- made by the AO on account of expense u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act." 3. Brief facts apropos the deletion of addition u/s 68 are: The assessee is a non banking finance company and also engaged in the business of purchase and sale of equity shares as a trader. During the regular trading activity of sale of shares by the assessee it sold shares to following two firms: (i) M/s S.J. Capital Ltd.; and (ii) M/s B Finlease India Pvt. Ltd. 3.1. The sale proceeds in both the years were realized by the assessee from above concerns by way of a/c payee cheques. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer asked to substantiate that the shares were in fact purchased and paid for by these two concerns. Assessee filed evidence in this behalf, details of opening stock, sales, purchase closing stock in respect of the equity shares and demonstrated that these shares were sold out of the opening stock and duly incorporated in the books of the company and the resultant profits incurred thereon has been incorporated in the books of accounts. Assessing officer, however, was not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither brought out any direct or inferential evidence to contradict the contention of the assessee. It is further observed that even though A.O. has vast powers U/S 131 and 133(6) of the Act, he has not used any of his powers to verify the genuineness of the claim of the assessee by verifying the documents furnished by it. If A.O. had doubted the impugned transaction after receiving the evidences which had been produced by the assessee in support of its claim it was very much open to the A.O. to do his independent enquiry and verification. This has not been done by the A.O. Further, what is the desired documentary evidence required to support the claim of the assessee as required by the A.O. is not coming out of the order of the A.O. 4.2 It is also observed that the impugned shares were purchased in the earlier years which was duly reflected in the closing stock and Schedule-C for investment of Balance- sheet as on 31-03-2001. Therefore, in the present case the assessee can be said to have discharged its onus under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to dispute the facts/details furnished by the appellant. It is settled proposition of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suitable accounting entries. The payment was through account payee cheques which demonstrate the genuineness of the transactions and identity of the purchasers. As far as the sale of shares is concerned, assessee has no obligation to ask the purchasers as to from where he is bringing the moneys as long as the payment is made through a/c payee cheques. Thus assessee discharged its primary onus cast u/s 68. CIT(A) has not rightly relied on the judgments as mentioned in his order. 5.1. Ld. Counsel then adverted to ITAT Delhi Bench "A" order dated 13- 7-2012 rendered in ITA no. 789/Del/10 in the case of M/s Akshay Portfolio (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO for A.Y. 2000-01, deleting similar type of addition by observing as under: "6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the relevant material available on record. The fact that Shri Satish Kumar proprietor of M/s Batra Investment expired on 8-1-2001 and death certificate in this behalf, has not been disputed, therefore, the production of Satish Kumar was beyond possibility. The assessee purchased the shares in earlier years from My Money Securities Pvt. Ltd. through banking channels; this fact has not been disputed. Thus the purchase of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cheques and a certificate from Corporate Bank in this regard was produced before the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings, which was forwarded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By the Assessing Officer . Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was clear that t he assessee company had been holding the shares which were sold by it during the year and that it was on this basis that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Had arrived at a conclusion that there was no reason to hold that the assessee company did not own these shares. Therefore, the Tribunal observed that there was no reason to hold these transactions to be sham transactions or the credits to be unexplained cash credits. 6. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact and we do not find any error in them so as to warrant interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration and consequently the appeal is dismissed. 5.3. Ld. Counsel further states that the issue about M/s S.J. Capital Ltd. and M/s B. Finlease India Pvt. Ltd. both being genuine concerns, came up before the ITAT Delhi Bench 'D' in the case of M/s Laxman Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer from M/s . B. Finlease India Pvt. Ltd. whereby M/s. B. Finlease India Pvt. Ltd. furnished confirmation of account for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003 confirming transactions amounting to Rs.39,25,0001- made with the assessee and also furnished its PAN as well as present address. The learned CIT(A) also found that M/s . B. Finlease India Pvt. Ltd. also furnished copy of income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2004-05 showing the existence of that company. M/s B. Finlease (1) Pvt. Ltd. also furnished copy of its Profit & Loss account and balance sheet and also a bank statement relating to the current account with the State Bank of Indore, Rohini, Delhi Branch. Similarly the learned CIT(A) found that letter dated 15.12.2008 was received by the AO from M/s. SJ. Capital Ltd. where also the confirmation of account, copy of income-tax return and copy of Profit & Loss account and balance-sheet of M/s. SJ. Capital Ltd. were furnished." 5.4. In the case of M/s Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. (supra), thus the ITAT has held the sale of shares sold to the above to concerns M/s S.J. Capital Ltd. and M/s B. Finlease India Pvt. Ltd. were genuine. The impugned years in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
