9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Textiles Ltd. or D’souzas, the fact remains that there is no fresh cash credit in the year under consideration – thus, addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 2655/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2014 - Shri D. Manmohan And Shri N. K. Billaiya,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sanjay Parikh For the Respondent : Shri Manish Kumar Singh ORDER Per D. Manmohan, V.P. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the CIT(A)-19, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2002-03. 2. Addition of Rs.1,00,000/- upheld by the CIT(A) under section 68 of the Act is subject matter of dispute before us. 3. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be taxed under section 41(1) or 28(iv), the disallowance is maintainable as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. On a further appeal, the ITAT set aside the matter in the light of certain fresh facts, i.e. the assessee obtained affidavits of Mr. Alfred D souza and Ms. Nandita D souza to the effect that they had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the assessee for investing in shares of Hatima Textiles Ltd. In other words, the case of the assessee is that on behalf of Hatima Textiles Ltd. the assessee collected a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the aforementioned parties and hence Hatima Textiles Ltd. was shown as creditor. Since fresh evidence was filed before the Tribunal, the matter was restored to the file of the AO to exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and hence the addition in the hands of the assessee is not warranted. Without prejudice to the above, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- cannot be taxed in the year under consideration as the amount had neither been received during the year under consideration nor there was cessation of liability during the year under consideration. Ground No. 5 reads as under: - 5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO failed to appreciate that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- could not be taxed for the year under consideration as the amount had neither been received during the year under consideration nor was there a cessation of liability during the year under consideration. The learned CIT(A), however, observed that the refund of the amount to Mr. Alfred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee received the amount from them, which in turn has to be given to Hatima Textiles Ltd. but the company having dropped the idea of private placement of its shares, the assessee showed Hatima Textiles Ltd. as creditor. At any rate, even if there is a dispute as to who should be treated as creditor, the undisputed fact is that it is not a fresh cash credit and hence the addition is not maintainable in this year. 7. On the other hand, the learned D.R. strongly relied upon the orders passed by the tax authorities. He mainly submitted that there is no proof of payment made to Mr. Alfred D souza and Ms. Nandita D souza in the year 2005. At any rate, the assessee had shown Hatima Textiles Ltd. as creditor but the existence of such a company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
