9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- made by AO Under Section.68 of the I T Act on protective basis." 3. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that when the appeals were called for hearing, neither the assessee nor his representative appeared before us nor any adjournment applications were filed on behalf of the assessee. However, on careful perusal of the appeal files and relevant material placed on record before us, inter alia assessment 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 Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to its total income. The relevant paragraph containing AR's arguments made before the AO is reproduced below: The assessee company is having only 6.5% share for which it had paid the amount of Rs. 5.10 crores through banking channel for its share. The 6.5% share of Rs. 55 crore works out to Rs. 3.58 crore (Approx) and even if the amount paid of Rs. 55 crores & advance of another 10 acre of land for Rs. 20 crores (Approx) is considered the total works out to Rs. 75 crores and the of land for Rs. 20 crores (Approx) is considered the total works out to Rs. 75 crores and the assessee company's 6.5% shares comes to Rs. 4.88 crores against the paid amount of Rs. 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 Rs. 34.70 crores in cash and Rs. 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 Rs. 2Q.30 crores has been paid through cheque and the balance amount of Rs. 34.70 crores (i.e. 55 crores - 20.30 crores has been paid in cash by the purchaser (Mls. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res (including Rs. 20 crores advance). For another 10 acre land, the extant assessee's share in the said amount worked out to much less than the amount paid by the assessee by cheque. In this situation, when the AO accepts that the cash payment has been made by M/s Om Metal 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, pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plained. 4.3.7 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 distu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rs. 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 the assessee. 13. Ld. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-09-2007 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 the top of the page. However the amounts written against various names of the companies are not cash transactions but bank transactions duly reflected in the books and explained to the AO with all supporting documents during the assessment proceedings. 4.2.6 I find that none of the credit entries relate to any cash deposits. They are all either bank-to-bank transfers or cheque deposits. The narrations in the bank account give the details of the account nos from where the amount has been received or the cheque numbers. I. also observe that there appears to be no dispute about amounts having been received in the appellant's bank account through bankin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 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 source of amount is thus explained fully. Furthermore, entries to these transactions were also available in the bank account statement of the assessee's account with Punjab National Bank. The CIT(A) also considered the confirmation from M/s Macro Leafin Pvt. Ltd., which was also placed before the AO, and copy of the assessment order passed in the case of Macro Leafin for AY 2008-09 wherein returned income has been accepted by the same AO and the AO has not disturbed disclosed taxable income of M/s Macro Leafin for the same financial period. 17. Lastly, we are inclined to hold that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the relevant facts of the case and rightly held that amounts received by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
