9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against revenue. - ITA Nos. 6457 & 6458/Del./2013, ITA No. 6459/Del./2013, ITA Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del./2013, ITA Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - D.C.I.T.,Central Circle-11, New Delhi Versus Winsome Finance Pvt. Ltd. SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant by : Shri Aliq Ahmed, Sr. D.R. For The Respondents by : None ORDER Per Bench: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of CIT(Appeals)-XXXI, New Delhi, all dated 19.09.2013 passed in appeals Nos. 403, 404, 405, 416 417/2013-14 for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. Except the amounts of addition made on protective basis, the sole ground of Revenue in all these five appeals is similarly worded. The ground raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 6457/Del./2013 for assessment year 2007-08 reads as under : 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,01,07,808/- made by AO under section 68 of the I T Act on protective basis. ITA No. 6457/Del./2013(A.Y. 2007-08): 3. Briefly st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerns of M/s. Shiv Vani group. The learned Departmental Representative further submitted that the transaction relating to present assessee pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 was rightly treated as unexplained transaction materialized through banking channel, the source of which is not explained. Hence, the same was rightly added in the hands of the assessee on protective basis u/s. 68 of the Act by the AO. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without any basis mainly holding that even if the AO had a doubt that the amount is something related to the entry business then he [CIT(A)] did not find any evidence brought on record which would say so. The leaned Departmental Representative finally contended that the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act on protective basis in the hands of the assessee cannot be deleted until and unless the issue of substantive addition attains finality in favour of the Revenue. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the impugned order may be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 7. On careful consideration of above submissions, and perusal of the assessment order, we n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Annexure A-14, is reflected on the same page as other transaction of Mr. Jain who is involved n giving entries to various group concern of Shiv Vani group as discussed above and this fact is proved from description on various pages of seized material. Hence, these transactions through Mr. Jain are held to be entry transaction financed through Shiv Vani out of undisclosed sources of income. As the source of funds for all these transactions through Mr. Jain is M/s. Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd., the flagship company of the group, substantive addition is being made in the hands of Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd and protective addition is being made in the hands of the assessee who is beneficial owner of these transaction. Thus the transaction relating to above assessee amounting to ₹ 70107808 pertaining to this assessment year is treated as unexplained transaction materialized through banking channel whose source is not explained. Hence, this amount is added in the hands of the assessee on protective basis u/s. 68 of the IT Act. I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income. Therefore, provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are purchase of shares of both of private limited and publicly listed companies. The AR has submitted that the sale considerations of these shares have been remitted into the bank account and the said page 56 of Annexure B14.A14 is the summary of receipts into the bank account of different companies (listed therein). Merely because Mr. Jain s name appears on the top of the table, it should not be inferred that the transactions are unaccounted. 4.2.9 I am of the view that there is no merit in holding that the amounts mentioned in the seized document relates to any deposits into the bank account the source of which is unexplained. The fact that the AO has found Mr. Jain to be a entry operator, in itself, cannot make every entry in the bank account as unexplained. The AO has ignored the fact that the appellant has sold his stock of shares and investment and received the amounts. Once the amounts are received through banking channels towards sale of stock in trade, the same cannot be held as amount the source of which unexplained. 4.2.10 The appellant had submitted before the AO that the amounts represented amount received on sales of stock and investment and also inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the submissions of the assessee that the assessee submitted confirmation of amount received/paid for verification before the AO which was duly reproduced by the AO in the assessment order. Hence, it was incorrect to say that the source of deposit in the bank account of the assessee remained unexplained. We are in agreement with the final conclusion of the CIT(A) that in case the AO had a doubt that the impugned amounts was related to the entry business then also he could not bring any evidence on record, which would say so, supporting the allegation of the AO. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the amount received in the bank account of the assesseerespondent as proceeds of sale of shares held as stock-in-trade and investment, cannot be held or treated as unexplained income of the assessee, which would attract addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Especially when these revenue receipts which were received against sale of stock in trade had already been credited to the P L account and reduced from the investments, then there cannot be further addition on protective basis u/s. 68 of the Act. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we are inclined to hold that the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
