9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Under the circumstances, impugned sum was received by the assessee in earlier years and hence provisions of section 68 is not applicable in the case of the assessee, for the years under consideration. The assessee has filed various details viz Name and address of Parties, Confirmation and PAN No, Bank statement of Pooja Kandhari/Thakur Sen Kandhari reflecting payment made by them to assessee. Bank Statement of assessee reflecting payment received from Pooja Kandhari / Thakur Sen Kandhari and Sanjay Chhabria. Since assessee company could not allot shares to these parties it has refunded amount received from these parties in subsequent years. The assessee filed the copies of ledger A/c of subsequent years alongwith copy of bank statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttracted u/s 68 of the Act. Your Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend the aforesaid ground of appeal. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business of real estate development of properties. The assessee is regularly assessed to tax. Its books of accounts are duly audited under the statutory provisions of Companies Act. The assessee, for the subjected year, filed its the return of income on 30.9.2011 declaring total loss at ₹ 225,750/- which has been subsequently revised on 12.06.2012 at ₹ 210,682/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment, AO made addition u/s.68 on account of share application money a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n money as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the C1T(A). On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 56,30,000/- in respect of one party namely Shri A. Sethu Madhavan holding that the assessee has satisfactorily discharged its onus u/s 68 of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition aggregating to ₹ 1,21,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect of two parlies Shri SanjayChhabaria ₹ 86,50,000/- and Smt. Pooja Kandhari/Shri Thakur Sen Kandhari ₹ 35,00,000/-. 6. It was contention of learned AR that impugned sum of ₹ 1,21,50,000/- was received by the assessee as deposits from respective parties in earlier years and same was shown under the head 'cur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ares cannot be allotted to these parties, a sum of ₹ 1,77,88,000/- were refunded to these parties in the subsequent years. Out of the three deposits, the CIT(A) has deleted one deposit after observing that same was properly explained. Thus, the addition of ₹ 1,77,80,000/- (Rs.2,14,14,659 - ₹ 36,34,659) made by the AO in respect of three parties treating the share application money as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the C1T(A). On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted further addition of ₹ 56,30,000/- in respect of one party namely Shri A. Sethu Madhavan holding that the assessee has satisfactorily discharged its onus u/s 68 of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the head liabilities year after year in earlier years. During the year under consideration, the assessee has only passed a journal entry in respective parties accounts and treated the deposits as Share Application Money, which also is grouped under the head liabilities in its Balance sheet. In this connection, the assessee has placed on record the ledger account of the parties from the year in which deposits were received from them till the year under consideration when the sum was transferred to share application money. Under the circumstances, impugned sum of ₹ 1,21,50,000/- was received by the assessee inearlier years and hence provisions of section 68 of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee, for the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
