9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hiness of the contributors and genuineness of the transactions. 1.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee-company was incorporated on 16.01.2004 for carrying on the business of real estate. The return for this year was filed on 30.06.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 12,770/- and adjusted book profit of Rs. 2,29,924/- u/s 115JB. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and thereafter statutory notices were issued for scrutinizing it. 1.2 It appears that Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department had carried out investigation and statedly unearthed a huge money laundering operation. The information gathered by it was disseminated to various AOs including the AO of this assessee. In the course of investigation, statement of Shri S.H. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso forwarded their replies through post to the AO in the form of confirmation and affidavit. The confirmation and the affidavit have been identically worded and the contents of addition by way of handwriting in the confirmation letter is also the same. It is inter-alia mentioned that various details have already been submitted to the company in which contribution was made. It was reiterated that the contribution has been made by cheque. However, no director from any company could be produced before the AO for authenticating the contents of the affidavit. Therefore, it was concluded that the burden cast on the assessee u/s 68 has not been discharged. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakh was added to the total income. 1.3 Aggrieved by this or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 2. CIT Vs. Meriton Towers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1381/2010 dated 16.09.2010 3. CIT Vs. VRM Global Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1364/2010 dated 14.09.2010. 4. CIT Vs. M/s Rock Metal & Minerals Ltd. in ITA No. 1303/2010 dated 07.09.2010. 5. CIT Vs. M/s Orbital Communication (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 989/2010 dated 80.08.2010. 6. CIT Vs. Ultratech Finance & Investment Ltd. in ITA No. 1122/2010 dated 12.08.2010. 7. CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. in ITA No. 586/2010 dated 12.05.2010. 8. CIT Vs. Vinstral Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 592/2010 dated 12.05.2010. 9. CIT Vs. Siri Ram Syal Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1360/2010 dated 06.09.2010. 10. CIT Vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. in ITA No. 2182/2009 dated 12.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, in which only the matters regarding creditworthiness of contributors and genuineness of the transactions have been mentioned. The question is whether, the ld. CIT(Appeals) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO? 3.1 The assessee has cited a large number of cases to support the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). We need not go through all the cases as they ultimately lead to the same conclusion, therefore, for the sake of brevity we may reproduce the relevant portion of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Meriton Towers P. Ltd. (supra):- "4. The Tribunal in its impugned order has also observed as under:- '4. We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR of the revenue and since this issue is covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
