9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciating that the assessee company has failed to submit confirmations from the said parties during the course of assessment proceedings. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd., and the latest judgment in the case of CIT vs. NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. respectively, the jurisdiction High Court have decided the same issue in favour of assessee. 2. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,34,958/-. Accordingly, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remium account in M/s. Triumph Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; ) Confirmations from these 6 companies were filed on 24.12.2007; but the assessee did not provide the Schedule of investments which was part and parcel of the respective Balance Sheets of the said six companies; (iv) the name of M/s. Triumph Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. does not figure in the list of companies in which Mis. Bankey Bihari Corporation Ltd. had made investments aggregating to RS. 4,25,50,000/- in the details of Schedule -3 of Investments forming part of its Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2005; As regard, M/s. Prashant Properties & Investments Ltd., Mumbai, the assessee has not even filed confirmation from this company regarding subscription of share capital amounting to Rs. 20,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records, especially the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has adjudicated the issue and held as under:- "It is clear that the appellant has discharged his burden of proof in respect of identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. The appellant has pointed out the he has filed the confirmation alongwith complete address and PAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further stated that all transactions have been through bank and the share investors are duly assessed to tax. In view of evidence filed by the assessee, the onus had shifted to the AO, but the AO has not been able to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee. In view of aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that the assessee remain noncooperative before the AO and did not file requisite documents before the AO, as asked by him and as a result thereof, the AO did not verify the documents furnished by the Assessee and also not done the independent inquiry and verification properly. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to set aside the issue in dispute to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
