9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce prescribed by National Stock Exchange of India. The ld. CIT(A) verified the above facts from the copy of account furnished before him. In the present case, the AO had also not controverted this submission of the assessee that the amount in question was received from a regular client who had executed business in the stock market through the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified and the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the same. We do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2918/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2015 - N K Saini, AM And A T Varkey, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Jain, CA For the Respondent : Shri B R R Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the amount added by the AO was not at all a share application money or cash credit because it was a business receipt on account of regular share trading business. It was further stated that if the AO had any doubt regarding the genuineness of the regular share transaction, he could have issued the notice u/s 133(6)/131 of the Act to the clients to verify the genuineness of the transaction. It was contended that the AO was not correct in observing that the details of transaction were not submitted before him, as can be seen from the reply of the assessee reproduced by the AO himself in the assessment order on page nos. 3 4, which indicated that the assessee had submitted the copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that it was a share application money. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that it was expected from the AO that he should have established that the assessee received any share application money which the AO had not done. Therefore, a mere observation that the assessee had received accommodation entries through the route of share capital which was not supported by any evidence material on record, was not a sufficient ground for making the addition. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee furnished copy of account of the share transaction done by M/s D.N. Kansal Securities Pvt. Ltd. on regular basis with the assessee company, copy of their Permanent Account Number and had also specifically submitted that it had not received any share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, it appears that the AO wrongly presumed that the deposit of ₹ 20,00,000/- made by M/s D.N. Kansal Securities Pvt. Ltd. who was a regular client of the assessee, was received as a share application money. The said amount was received by the assessee in normal course of business as a margin money which was taken as per the normal trade practice prescribed by National Stock Exchange of India. The ld. CIT(A) verified the above facts from the copy of account furnished before him. In the present case, the AO had also not controverted this submission of the assessee that the amount in question was received from a regular client who had executed business in the stock market through the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
