9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum should be credited in the books but the assessee has credited the sale proceeds in its books of accounts which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer. AO has nowhere found the defect in the books of accounts, therefore, when the assessee has credit sale proceeds in cash in the books of accounts and the same is deposited in bank, no addition can be made u/s 68 Unexplained share application money - Held that:- In case of three parties the learned CIT(A) was of the view that three parties, viz. M/s R.K. Skyline Construction Ltd., M/s Renovision Commece P. Ltd and Amarjyoti Vyapar Ltd. no cash was deposited and the learned CIT(A) has verified the bank accounts of these parties and he has treated it as genuine and the addition of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t satisfied identity of the share holders. He, therefore, made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 4. 4. On appeal, the assessee carried the matter in appeal and the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition of ₹ 35.05 lacs which was added in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act by observing as under :- 7. The first ground of appeal is against addition of ₹ 35.05 lacs, which was added by A.O. in hands of appellant u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, for the amount of cash deposits seen by A.O. in Citi Bank account of the appellant. The appellant explained that such cash deposits of ₹ 35.05 lacs in the bank are out of cash sales of ₹ 44,93 lacs which are duly reflected as a part of total sales of ₹ 85,11,415/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his action. This ground of the revenue is dismissed. 6. The next ground is against the addition of ₹ 40 lacs which was restricted by the learned CIT(A) to ₹ 28 lacs. Against this deletion of addition of ₹ 12 lacs the department is in appeal and the assessee is in cross objection in support of deletion of addition of ₹ 12 lacs. 7. The short facts of the case are that the assessee has received the amount of share application money from 10 companies based at Calcutta being ₹ 4 lacs received from each company because these companies are at same place and only some are having addresses. The assessee filed copy of share application money and the copies of cheques issued. The Assessing Officer observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vyapar Ltd. no cash was deposited and the learned CIT(A) has verified the bank accounts of these parties and he has treated it as genuine and the addition of ₹ 12 lacs was deleted. Therefore, our interference is not called for. 9. In the cross objection, the assessee has simply supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 10. In view of our above discussion, the departmental appeal and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. 11. In ITA No. 320/Ind/2014 the assessee has taken ground no. 1 that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in retaining the addition to ₹ 28 lacs out of the addition of ₹ 40,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 12. In view of our discussion in the foregoing paragraph while dealing with the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant which raises serious doubts on the genuineness of these transactions. As a result, addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act of ₹ 16,39,960/- is hereby confirmed. Ground no. 4 of appeal is dismissed. 16. We have heard both the sides. We find that it is a fact that this depositor who is a director in appellant company has shown income of only ₹ 1,49,301/- in its return and capital is only ₹ 9,27,309/- and in these circumstances creditworthiness of depositor is not proved for giving a credit of ₹ 16,39,960/-. We further find that huge cash deposit was seen in the bank account before making the payment. Therefore, this transaction was doubtful. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Umesh Krishnani vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
