9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 281/2016 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2017 - Mr. K.S. Jhaveri And Mr. Vijay Kumar Vyas JJ. For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in reversing the findings of the CIT(A) and deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the basis that the quantum addition has been deleted? 3. In this regard, the Tribunal has observed as under:- 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g document was found during the course of search at the premises of Shri Gajendra Porwal to corroborate his statements about indulging in arranging accommodating entries which are being done at large scale in a systematic manner, as claimed. We thus hold that in the present case there was no sufficient material/evidence on record to come to the conclusion that transactions in question are bogus. Under this background, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. For a ready reference the relevant para at pages 6 to 8 in the case of Shri Megh Raj Singh Shekhawat which is also common in the other appeals is being reproduced hereunder:- The contention of the A/R is considered. It appears that the sole basis for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction entered into between the appellant and M/s. JTFSPL was not genuine. The AO has taken support of the general statement given by Sh. Porwal, that the shares were subsequently been transferred to confident of the beneficiaries. However, the AO failed to give any specific finding about a particular transaction under consideration that the shares purchased by M/s. JTFSPL were subsequently transferred to the appellant or its beneficiaries. In fact the AO has not quoted any specific question and its answer given by Sh. Porwal with reference to the transaction under reference. Sh. Porwal in his statement also admitted that he provided entry for a commission received in cash but in the present case the AO has not given any finding, how m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the cash was deposited before issuing the cheques in favour of the appellant and thus the credit worthiness is also proved. So far as genuineness of the transaction is concerned the AO has not established that the money paid by JTFSPL to the appellant was the appellant's money. Copies of the share certificates were also filed along with the written submission which proves that the appellant had 415000 shares of M/s. Gorbandh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Kamod Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd. And on sale the assessee were also transferred in the name of JTFSPL and the amount was received by account payee cheque. Thus the genuineness of the transaction is also proved. The AO made distinction of the facts of the present case with the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
