9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd creditworthiness of the cash creditor is not doubtful. No inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition and thus we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. - ITA No.791/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2019 - MR KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M/s. Divya Jyoti Industries Ltd. For The Revenue : Shri R.S.Ambedkar, Sr. DR For The Assessee : Shri Thribhuven Sachdeva, Adv ORDER PER MANISH BORAD. The above captioned appeal is filed at the instance of Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 and is directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I (in short Ld.CIT(A) ], Indore dated 30.03.2016 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the Act ) dated 31.03.2014 framed by JCIT Range-1, Indore. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; 1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,70,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act. 2.Whether in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) against all the additions made by the Ld. A.O. Ld. CIT(A) after examining the detailed submission filed by the assessee, documentary evidences, order of CIT(A)-II, Indore dated 31.12.2015 in the case of the alleged cash creditor Gajanand Ramlal Agrawal deleted all the additions made by the Ld. A.O. 5. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising two grounds but the sole grievance is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 1,70,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. A.O. 7. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the submissions made before Ld. CIT(A) and the documents placed in the paper book submitted that the alleged two cheques of ₹ 90 lakhs and ₹ 80 lakhs were entered into the books on 30.3.2011 and 31.3.2011 respectively on the dates mentioned on these cheques. At that point of time the validity of cheques was for 6 months. It is true that the cheque book containing these two cheques was issued by the bank to its customer namely Gajanand Ramlal Agrawal on 28.6.2011 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. AO therefore held that the loan from Shri Gajanand Agrawal was not established and added the amount of ₹ 17000000/-. 5.2 Appellant has explained that loan has been taken from Shri Gajanand Agrawal. The cheques were inadvertently dated 30/03/2011 31/03/2011 but were handed over to the appellant company only in August, 2011 and were deposited and cleared In August, 2011. However as the cheques were dated 30/03/2011 31/03/2011 and as the appellant was following mercantile system of accounting at the time of finalizing the accounts these cheques were taken in the books of accounts for the year under consideration. Appellant has also highlighted the fact that the addition made in the hands of Shri Gajanand Ram Lal Agrawal has also been deleted by the CIT(A)-Il, Indore vide his order in Appeal No. IT-121/14-15 dated 31/12/2015. Appellant has also explained that as a result of the above no cash was introduced and filed the bank reconciliation also. Considering all the material placed on record the addition of ₹ 17000000/- is directed to be deleted in appeal. These grounds of the appellant are therefore allowed. ₹ 17000000/- deleted . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the transaction entered in the alleged course of the business. So we can safely conclude that the alleged three entries of totaling ₹ 1.70 crores have no relation with the alleged transaction of receiving loan of ₹ 90 lakhs and ₹ 80 lakhs by the assessee from Gajanand Ramlal Agrawal and therefore the first basis taken by Ld. A.O of linking this trade transaction with the loan transaction is baseless. 11. Now the second basis for making addition by Ld. A.O that the loan amount of ₹ 1.70 crores received by two cheques of ₹ 90 lakhs and ₹ 80 lakhs were entered in the books on30.3.2011 and 31.3.2011. The cheque books through which these cheques were issued were received by Gajanand Ramlal Agrawal from the bank in the subsequent financial year on 28.6.2011 and the cheques were physically given to the assessee in August, 2011 but the dates were mentioned as 30.3.2011 and 31.3.2011. Ld. A.O raised the objection for the alleged entering of the transaction in March, 2011 even when the cheques were not in hand with the assessee. It is a well accepted fact that before the finalization of the audit and filing of the income tax return certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
