9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -relation between a sum of ₹ 33,57,951 and the statements of the above broker with the assessee. The finding of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been rebutted through any evidence or material on record. No information is available on record as to how the assessee company has taken loss from these client code modification. There is no working given in the assessment order as to how the impugned addition has been calculated by the A.O. and its basis. In the absence of any incriminating material available on record against the assessee, it is difficult to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). No details have been brought on record as to from whom assessee has taken the bogus entry of losses. Learned Counsel for the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 148 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. passed the assessment order dated 3rd February, 2016 determining the income at ₹ 44,96,171 by making addition of ₹ 33,57,951 on the ground that assessee has taken bogus loss by changing the client code. 2.1. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition on merit before Ld. CIT(A). The written submissions of the assessee were reproduced in the appellate order. The Ld. CIT(A), however, confirmed the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act and dismissed this ground of appeal of assessee. 2.2. Further, as regards addition on merit, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. His findings in the appellate order are reproduced as under : I have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called for any information about alleged loss of ₹ 33,57,951/-. It is also stated that AO has relied upon the statements of Kunal Khaleja and Subhash Chandra Khaleja but on reading of those statements, it is seen that there is no correlation between the sum of ₹ 33,57,951/- and the statements of above mentioned brokers. At page 6 of the assessment order, the AO has stated that the appellant has reduced profit of ₹ 10,08,220/- and there is no reference to the loss of ₹ 33,57,951/- in any of the material relied upon by the AO in the assessment order. I have considered the submission of the appellant and the report received from DIT (I CI), Mumbai. On going through the same, it is seen that in the name of Abhish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising Marketing (P.) Ltd., (2015) 375 ITR 373 (Del.) and decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Deepak Agro Foods vs. State of Rajasthan Others 2008-TIOL-134. Ld. D.R. submitted matter may be remanded back to A.O. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee has not taken any loss from any party. There is no evidence of changing the client code. In assessment year under appeal, the gross loss of the assessee is zero and in the preceding assessment year, the loss was ₹ 6.38 crores. It would mean that loss has reduced in as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of any incriminating material available on record against the assessee, it is difficult to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). It may also be noted here that even no details have been brought on record as to from whom assessee has taken the bogus entry of losses. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also demonstrated through P L A/c that in assessment year under appeal the loss as compared to the earlier year has reduced to zero. Therefore, there is no question of making any addition against the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) on proper appreciation of facts and material on record, correctly deleted the addition. Since the A.O. did not bring any evidence against the assessee to sustain the addition, therefore, there is no reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
