9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JM For The Revenue : Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT) Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) For The Assessee : Shri Vinod Gupta (CA) ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. These are two appeals filed by the revenue and assessee against the orders of ld. CIT (A) Alwar dated 26.02.2014 and 13.01.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has also filed a cross objection arising out of appeal in ITA No. 305/JP/2014 filed by the revenue. Out of these two appeals, ITA No. 305/JP/2014 is in respect of quantum proceedings and ITA No. 213/JP/2017 is respect of penalty proceedings. We, first take up the revenue s appeal in ITA No. 305/JP/2014. The revenue has raised the following modified solitary ground filed on 24.05.2017 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... While partly allowing the appeal, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the trading addition. He also deleted the disallowance of expenses. The ld. CIT (A) also deleted the disallowance made on account of non-deduction of tax. However, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 80,00,000/- made by the AO for the reason that assessee could not discharge the onus u/s 68 on account of loan received by the assessee from the Director. In respect of addition made on account of unexplained advances of ₹ 6.80 crore received from M/s. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the same. Against this, both the revenue and assessee have filed appeal and cross objection respectively. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. as on 31.03.2009 is placed on record in the form of paper book at pages 46-54. As per the Director s Report dated 31.03.2009, profit before tax was ₹ 2,32,72,493/-. As per the Balance Sheet, the assessee was having funds available in the form of share capital and reserves and surplus. Therefore, the said company was having sufficient fund to advance a sum of ₹ 6.80 crore to the assessee company. 3.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The ld. CIT (A) has decided the issue by observing as under :- 9.5. I have perused the assessment order, remand report as well as submissions made by the appellant and find the addition of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk due to very old period. 2. That the addition u/s 68 unexplained advance of ₹ 6.8 crore, identity and genuineness of the said advance accepted by ld. ACIT, Circle-2, Alwar and ld. CIT (A), Alwar and deletion of said addition has not erred in law as well as the facts and circumstances. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) legally and factually erred in dismiss the request to cancel penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) issued by ld. AO as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Detail grounds of cross objection and relevant documents are separately attached. 5. That the respondent craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of cross objection on or before the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been audited u/s 44AB of the Act by the qualified Chartered Accountant. It is important to note that during the remand (refer Para 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 of CIT (A) order), the complete books of accounts along with vouchers were produced and examined by the AO. After examination, it is stated that books of accounts are verifiable and resultantly, ld. CIT (A) deleted the entire trading addition. The finding and the action of the CIT (A) in this regard, has accepted by the Department. The bank balance has also accepted by the lower authorities. Under the facts taking into account, the Ledger of the Creditors produced as additional evidence, wherein, the amount has been shown as deposited in State Bank of India Account. It is a basic concept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erwise, we have filed copy of bank statement, wherein all the entries are verifiable. Under the facts and circumstances, ld. CIT (A) has erred by sustaining addition of ₹ 80.00 lacs u/s 68 of the Act. 9.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R opposed the submissions. 9.2. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The contention of the assessee is that the bank statement etc. not made available at the stage of first appellate authority. After considering the totality of facts, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of AO to verify the claim of the assessee and decide this issue de novo. The Cross Objection is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA NO. 213/JP/2017 (Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
