9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w which is liable to be set aside. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made of ₹ 8,25,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the department has clearly established that these transactions were accommodation entries and the genuineness and creditworthiness of the persons could not be proved. 3. On the fats and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 16,500 made on account of unexplained experience. 2. Ground no.1 is general and need not be adjudicated. 3. Apropos Ground no.2, as per the assessment order, a report on enquiries made by the Directorate of Income-tax (Inv.), New Delhi, was received, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce in the said account was merely ₹ 5183; that only after this credit entry had been made on identical amount of ₹ 3 lakhs was paid to the assessee company; that further there was an immediate credit entry of ₹ 1631460 on 13.12.2000 in the said bank account and on 14.12.2000, this amount was disbursed to three entities; that an amount of ₹ 2 lakhs had been shown to have been cleared on the said date; that in fact, the bank statement of this concern also did not contain more than 25 entries for the entire year, FY 2000-01, which were ordinarily in the nature of "transferred in" and "transferred out" entries, casting of serious doubt over the genuineness of the transactions of business carried on; that this showed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 305 ITR 202 (Del.) 3. 210 CTR 185 (P&H) ….(page no. incorrect) 4. CIT vs. Kundan Investment Ltd., 263 ITR 626 (Cal.) 5. Beautex (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, 34 SOT 465 (Del.) Ld.DR also relied on the following decisions in this regard: 1. Mangilal Jain vs. ITO, 315 ITR 105 (Mad.) 2. CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) 7. On the other hand, Ld.Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the impugned order. He submitted that the amounts in question were received as refund of advances made over to the parties for purchase of goods which purchase could not materialize, since the parties could not supply the goods in time; as such these amounts cannot be termed as unexplained income of the assessee; th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee successfully explained the entries. 9. In view of the above, none of the case laws relied on by the department is applicable, since there is no applicability of section 68 of the Act, as parties concerned were not creditors of the assessee. 10. For the above discussion, finding no justification on the grievance raised by way of ground no.2, this ground is rejected. 11. Apropos ground no.3, the addition of ₹ 16,500 was made by the AO on the basis of alleged possibility of commission have not been paid for obtaining the accommodation entries of ₹ 8,25,000. The CIT(A) deleted this addition. 12. Since the deletion of the addition of₹ 8,25,000 has been upheld, ground no.3 also loses force and is rejected as such. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
