9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g addition u/s.68 of the Act, any credit found during the year, for which the source was not explained required to be considered for addition. In the instant case, there is no credit found to be credited in the books of account for which the source remained un-explained. Thus, there is no case for making the addition u/s.68 of the Act. Hence, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. Addition relating to difference in payments of subcontracts - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte, without going into the facts of the case. The fact whether the amount charged to P L A/c represented ₹ 1,65,92,944/- or ₹ 1,73,82,082/- was not clearly discussed in the assessment order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be verified at the end of the AO. Hence, we remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to reconsider the issue and decide the same afresh on merits, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This Ground raised by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Addition relating to additional profit - HELD THAT:- It is true tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,88,500 2.1. Against the said order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). None appeared before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. 2.2. Against the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised two Grounds. 3. Ground No.1 is related to disposal of appeal by the Ld.CIT(A), without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 3.1. During the appeal proceedings before us, Ld.AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte , without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he contended that the Ld.CIT(A) committed gross error violating the principles of natural justice and hence requested to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 3.2. Per contra, Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). 3.3. We have gone through the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and find that the Ld.CIT(A) posted the present case for hearing on two occasions. But, the assessee did not appear before the Ld.CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the shares from the shareholders. Referring to Pg.52 of the Paper Book, Ld.AR taken our attention to the Balance Sheet and stated that the outstanding share capital was ₹ 97,45,000/- for the year ending 31-03- 2012 and the same remained for the year ending 31-03-2013. Referring to Pg.56 of the Paper Book, the assessee has shown the changes of shareholdings of various shareholders and demonstrated that shares of the company were acquired by some new shareholders from the existing shareholders and argued that there was change in the pattern of shareholding and submitted that neither the company has issued fresh share capital nor introduced any cash credits during the year under consideration. Therefore, submitted that there is no case for making the addition u/s.68 of the Act and hence requested to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal of assessee. 5.4. Per contra, the Ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5.5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed on record. From the perusal of the Balance Sheet, we find that there is no change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on letter with complete address, confirming the subscription towards share application money. The amount was paid through Bank cheque. At Pg.66 of the Paper Book, Ld.AR furnished copy of the bank account of Ramsri Infratech Private Limited, supporting the receipt of share application money through banking channels. At Pg.67 of the Paper Book, the assessee furnished a copy of the Aadhar Card, which contains the complete and clear address of share applicant Ms. Ch.Pushpavathi. Therefore, argued that the assessee has discharged the burden and there is no case for making the addition u/s.68 of the Act. Hence, requested to delete the addition made by the AO and to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A). 6.3. The Ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6.4. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed before us. It is true that during the year under consideration, the amount of ₹ 6,40,000/- was received as share application money in the account of assessee-company. The said share application money was received through cheque, which was established from the bank account copy. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Difference 1 Ajay Mahajan 21,82,100 20,49,455 1,32,645 2 Bhagh Singh 41,61,702 41,61,702 0 3 Batt Hydro Power 1,10,38,280 1,03,81,787 6,56,493 4 Dildar Ali Bhatt 1,44,200 1,43,566 634 Total : 7,89,138 The AO came to the conclusion that the assessee had debited the sum of ₹ 1,73,82,082/- against the liability incurred during the year at ₹ 1,65,92,944/-. Thus, the difference of ₹ 7,89,138/- wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were also made to the sub-contractors, therefore, there is no case for making the addition. Going through the Paper Book and the particulars placed before us, shows that the amount charged to P L A/c was ₹ 1,65,92,944/- but not ₹ 1,73,82,082/-. The Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte, without going into the facts of the case. The fact whether the amount charged to P L A/c represented ₹ 1,65,92,944/- or ₹ 1,73,82,082/- was not clearly discussed in the assessment order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be verified at the end of the AO. Hence, we remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to reconsider the issue and decide the same afresh on merits, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This Ground raised by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No.2(d) is with regard to addition made by the AO of ₹ 1,88,500/- relating to additional profit. The AO found that the assessee is engaged in two different businesses. One is contract of power project and the other is real estate such as constructions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
