9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. containing GIR number, assessment details, Form No.2, now available at page 100 and 101 of the paper book. Moreover, in order dated 19.12.2006 passed in case of Sanjay Rastogi for AY 2002-03 by ld. CIT (A) it is categorically mentioned by ld. CIT (A) that there is no material to establish the link between Sanjay Rastogi and Finorg Chemicals Ltd. So, we are also of the considered view that the addition of ₹ 28,00,000/- is not sustainable. Thus amount received by the assessee company from M/s. Finorg Chemicals Ltd. on account of sale of shares has already been taxed in its hands and as such, this addition is not sustainable, hence we delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on incomplete confirmation beari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 28 lacs received from M/s Finorg Chemicals Ltd. on account of explained sale of shares. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,07,000/- being an opening balance in the account of Kishan Chand Ferro Steels Ltd. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the disallowance of expenses of ₹ 2,34,560/- on ad hoc basis ignoring the submissions made by the assessee. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of this case are : during the scrutiny proceedings qua return of income filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2002-03, certain issues came to the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kishan Chand Ferro Steel Pvt. Ltd. filed by the assessee to explain ₹ 1,07,000/- has been rejected by the AO for want of date and incomplete PAN and thereby made an addition of ₹ 1,07,000/-. AO assessed the taxable income of the assessee company at ₹ 91,67,138/-. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing the appeal who has partly allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. By moving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have been received from M/s. Finorg Chemicals Ltd., which is one of the bogus companies being run for merely operating the entries/ transactions and were not in actual business. Sanjay Rastogi, Director of the assessee company categorically admitted in his statement recorded during survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department on 04.03.2003 that, he was engaged in providing accommodation entries in various outside entities through the 8 companies floated by him for this purpose having registered office at Vakil Chamber, A-115, Shakarpur. 9. Assessee company is one of the aforesaid 8 bogus companies being run by Sanjay Rastogi and total accommodation entries provided by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from assessee company. 12. The contention of the ld. DR for the revenue that company is a juristic person and has to be taxed independent of its Director is not tenable in the face of admitted fact that the assessee company is a bogus company merely floated to provide accommodation entries and income in question has already been taxed in the hands of Mr. Sanjay Rastogi and this fact has already been admitted and considered by the revenue while taxing Sanjay Rastogi qua AY 1999-00 to 2003-04. Sanjay Rastogi has even paid the penalty imposed upon him on the basis of his assessed income qua M/s. Finorg Chemicals Ltd.. 13. Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that the amount of ₹ 28,00,000/- received by the assessee company f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishan Chand Ferro Steel Pvt. Ltd. has been furnished. Even no cogent evidence has been produced during first appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT (A) by the assessee. So, we hereby confirm the addition of ₹ 1,07,000/- made by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT (A). So, ground no.2 is determined against the assessee. GROUND NO.3 16. AO from the scrutiny of profit loss account noticed that the personal expenses of ₹ 6,27,720/- and administrative expenses of ₹ 4,87,488/- has been claimed by the assessee, out of which AO disallowed 30% of the total expenditure on the ground that the assessee company has failed to submit necessary evidence. Thereafter, addition of ₹ 3,34,560/- has also been confirmed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
