9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustainable and the same was correctly deleted by the first appellate authority i.e. CIT(A). We are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order and we uphold the same on this ground. - Decided against revenue. Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- While we analyse last operative paras of CIT(A), it is amply clear that the AO added as received from NKP Holding Pvt. Ltd. (NKPH) on three different dates and source of the same was fully explained as the bank account was maintained by Shri N.K. Jain in his name which appeared in the copy of the bank statement. These entries were very well reflected in the bank statement of account with Punjab National Bank. The CIT(A) also noted that confirmation from NKPH was submitted before the AO during assessment proceedings and from the assessment order for AY 2007-08 passed in the case of NKPH, the AO has not disturbed the returned amount and the same has been accepted. In view of above noted facts, the CIT(A) rightly concluded that the amount added by the AO was received by the assessee from NKPH and when there is no adverse inference in the case of NKPH, the same cannot be held as unexplained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders, impugned orders of the CIT(A), we are of the view that these appeals can be disposed of in the absence of the assessee after hearing the ld. DR. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeals. Ground No. 1 of the revenue 4. Ld. DR supporting the action of the AO submitted that the AO observed that the assessee share in cash payment of 34.70 crores for purchase of land is taken at ₹ 2.26 crores which was consideration as investment in land from undisclosed income. Hence, to protect the interest of the revenue, a protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee and substantive addition was made in the hands of M/s Om Metal Developers Private Limited. Ld. DR vehemently contended that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without any justified reason, hence, the same may be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 5. On careful perusal of the assessment order and impugned order, we note that the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee with following observations and conclusion:- 4.2 Ground No.2 4.2.1 The AR has made an addition of ₹ 2.26 crores towards appellants share in the cash paid by OM Metal Developers Pvt. Ltd. The relevant facts are mentioned at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 55 crores advance of another 10 acre of land for ₹ 20 crores (Approx) is considered the total works out to ₹ 75 crores and the of land for ₹ 20 crores (Approx) is considered the total works out to ₹ 75 crores and the assessee company's 6.5% shares comes to ₹ 4.88 crores against the paid amount of ₹ 5.10 crores. 4.2.3 The AO has accepted the appellant's arguments. He has observed that for the purchase of 10 acres of land the purchaser i.e. Om Metal Developers Pvt. Ltd. have paid ₹ 34.70 crores in cash and ₹ 20.30 crores by cheque. The relevant paragraph of the AO's conclusion in this regard is as under: From the above it is clear that ₹ 2Q.30 crores has been paid through cheque and the balance amount of ₹ 34.70 crores (i.e. 55 crores - 20.30 crores has been paid in cash by the purchaser (Mls. Om Metal Developers Private Limited). The assessee company M/s. Metro Management Services Private Limited has 6.5% shares in M/s. Om Metal Developers Private Limited. The share of the assessee company in cash payment comes to ₹ 2.26 crores approximately. 4.2.4 The AO has however, made an addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etal then protective addition in the hands of assessee is not sustainable and the same was correctly deleted by the first appellate authority i.e. CIT(A). We are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order and we uphold the same on this ground. Accordingly, ground no. 1 of the Revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue 7. Apropos ground no.2 of the Revenue, we have heard arguments of ld. DR and also carefully perused the relevant material placed on record before us. Ld. DR submitted that the AO noticed that as per facts brought on record by the AO, Shri N.K. Jain was an entry operator who was involved in giving entries to various group concerns of Shri Vani Group which was also proved by the various pages of seized material. Ld. DR further pointed out that the substantial addition was made in the hands of Shiv Vani Oil Gas Exploration Services Ltd., hence, protective addition was rightly made in the hands of the assessee who was beneficial owner of these transactions. Ld. DR vehemently contended that the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without any justified reason, hence, impugned order may kindly be set aside by r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is observed that in the assessment proceedings the complete books of accounts, bank statements transactions were explained to the AO and no adverse inference was drawn by the AO on the books of accounts transactions mentioned therein. 4.3.8 The AO has added ₹ 63 Lakhs. The AR has submitted that the same represents share application amount received from group concern which is very much assessed by the same AO. The amount of ₹ 63 Lakhs was received from the NKP Holding Pvt. Ltd. on 3 different dates. Since the bank account was maintained by Mr. N. K. Jain his name appears at the top of the page. The source of the amount, is thus explained fully. Further the entries to this fact are also available in the bank account statement of the appellant company with Punjab National Bank on the respective dates. The AR had also submitted before the AO confirmation from NKP holding Pvt. Ltd., the copy of which has also been submitted in the paper book at Page No. 39. The AR has also enclosed copy of assessment order of NKP holding Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2007-08 passed by the same assessing officer on 28.03.2013 and submitted that in the said order, the AO has not disturbed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same cannot be held as unexplained in the case of assessee. Hence, we are in agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the protective addition in the hands of assessee is not sustainable and he rightly directed the AO to delete the same. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the revenue being devoid of merits is also dismissed. ITA No. 6456/Del/2013 of the Revenue 11. The sole ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads as follows:- (4) The order of ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. (5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 5,00,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. 12. Ld. DR submitted that the AO noticed that transactions at page 56 of Annexure -1 show that impugned transactions through Shri N.K. Jain, an entry operator, were bogus entry transactions financed by the assessee out of its undisclosed source of income as the source of funds for all these transactions through Mr. Jain, M/s Shiv Vani, a flagship company at the group, hence, substantive addition was made in the hands of M/s Shiv Vani and protective addition was made in the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AD) 50,00,000.00 05-09-2007 By CLEARING 454962 (BRABDURKE ROAD) 50,00,000.00 06-09-2007 By CLEARING 454966 (BRABDURKE ROAD) 50,00,000.00 06-09-2007 By CLEARING 454967 (BRABDURKE ROAD) 50,00,000.00 06-09-2007 By CLEARING 454968 (BRABDURKE ROAD) 50,00,000.00 06-09-2007 By CLEARING 454969 (BRABDURKE ROAD) 50,00,000.00 07-09-2007 By CLEARING 454970 (BRABDURKE ROAD) 40,00,000.00 4.2.5 It has been explained that wherever there was cash element in the transaction with Mr. lain, the appellant has duly included the same in their surrendered income. The details found at page 56 of B14.A14 are not having any cash element not accounted in the assessee's books. It has been further submitted that since Mr. Jain was maintaining the bank accounts at Kolkota, his name appears at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order of Macro Leafin Pvt. Ltd. there is no adverse finding of the AO. Considering these facts, there is no ground for holding the amount as unexplained. Thus ₹ 5,00,00,000/- added on protective basis is hereby deleted. 16. In the light of conclusion of the AO and observations of the first appellate authority, we note that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition in the same line as was deleted in AY 2007-08 (Ground no. 2 of the revenue). The CIT(A) precisely noted that alleged amounts having been received through banking channel in the appellant s/assessee s bank account and all these transactions have been duly reflected in the bank accounts of the assessee, specially when the AO had noted that unexplained transactions materialized through banking channels. Per contra, the AO held that the source was not explained by the assessee which is not in accordance with the facts of the case as the AO did not point or bring on record any adverse evidence of fact from the complete books of accounts, bank statements which were placed before him during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) also rightly observed that since the bank account was maintained by Mr. N.K. Jain, the sourc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
