9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sources of these monies in the hands of the depositor or shareholder cannot be an issue either. In any event, when credit worthiness is accepted for a part of the amount, as the CIT(A) rightly holds, credit worthiness cannot be declined for another part of the same amount- and that too without any cogent material at all. In the case of a director, the identity also stands accepted anyway. In the light of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, approve the well reasoned conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. Additions made on account of disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) - CIT-A deleting the additions -Held that:- When it was po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are capital application money of ₹ 44,00,000 and unsecured loans aggregating to ₹ 64,85,320 from Shri Nailesh Mashru, a director in the assessee company, and ₹ 44,00,000 as share application money from another director Shri Medul Kakkad. Out of these receipts, the Assessing Officer treated the following as unexplained credit and brought the same to tax under section 68: Details of Share application money In the case of Mr. Nailesh H. Mashru Date Mode of payment Amount (In Rs.) Remarks 31.5.2007 Cheque 100000 Before issue cheque cash deposited 2.6.2007 Bank Transfer 100000 Before issue cheque cash deposited 14.06.2007 Bank Transfer 200000 Before issue cheque cash deposited 18.06.2007 Cheque 200000 Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Explained 10.12.2007 Cash 19000 Source not Explained Total 138500 From the above table, it can be seen that out of the total share application money accepted of ₹ 50,00,000/- from both the directors, the assessee company has not been able to provide any source for the amount of ₹ 23,43,537/- (22,05,037 + 1,38,500) for alleged share application. Similarly from the details produced by the assessee, in respect unsecured loans the creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions could not be established in respect following transactions:- In case of Mr. N. H. Mashru. Date Mode of payment Amount (Rs.) Source 16.04.2007 Cheque 110000 Not Explained 19.04.2007 Transfer 21000 Not Explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and discussion made above it is clear that the amount introduced in the shape of share capital and unsecured loans in the name of directors of the company are nothing but unaccounted income of the assessee company. Reliance is also placed on below case laws, which supports the conclusion of the department 4. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted these additions, and, while doing so, observed as follows: I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submission made by the appellant. The A. O. has treated part of share application money and loans given by the Directors of the Company namely; Shri Nailesh H. Mashru and Shri Mehul Kakkad as unexplained u/s. 68 of the Act and made the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepting the credit worthiness of the depositor, he cannot do it for the part amount. As he is accepting that the deposit has been given by certain person, the source of the deposit has to be examined in the hands of the depositor and in case he feels that the part of the deposit is unexplained the action should be taken in the hands of the depositor as the appellant has sufficiently discharged its onus. Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances, the addition of ₹ 35,81,537/- on account of unexplained credit u/s. 68 is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed. 5. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief so granted by the CIT(A) and is in appeal before me. 6. I have heard the rival contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 8. Ground no. 1 is thus dismissed. 9. In ground no. 2, the Assessing Officer is aggrieved that the CIT(A) "has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions made on account of disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Act". However, when it was pointed out to the learned DR that the CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the amounts well within the grace period, and there is nothing to controvert the same, learned DR did not say anything beyond placing reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, see no reasons to disturb the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and to interfere in the matter. 10. Ground no, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
