9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts of the decisions relied upon with the peculiar facts of the case in hand . - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No. 1177/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2019 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Raj Kumar, CA Sh. Sumit Goel, CA For the Revenue : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 30.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 26,85,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances as the assessee was ultimate beneficiary and has taken loan from dubious company M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. where source of fund remain unexplained. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 26.85 crores u/s. 68 of the Act, despite the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order, Revenue is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer and stated that Section 68 of the Act permits the AO to add the credit appearing in the books of account of the assessee if the latter offers no explanation regarding the nature and source of the credit or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. She also submitted that it places no duty upon AO to point to the source from which the money was received by the assessee. She also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles (P) Ltd. (2014) 50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) and the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Navodaya Castle (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC). In view of above, she requested to allow the appeal of the Revenue. 5. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed well reasoned order which does not need any interference. In support of his contention, he also filed two paper books i.e. Paper Book-I containing p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of the asstt. order), which amt. has been given to assessee on loan(A.O. Pg.15, Para-12) It is for this reason that the A.O. added ₹ 26.85 Cr. the loan reed. from Verrenyam u/s.68 The case ofVerrenyam of A.Y.12-13 was completed u/s.143(3) (1-18) In the case of Verrenyam, the said amt. ₹ 24.78 Cr. taken from 13 companies by Verrenyam has been added u/s.68 (RP - 17-18) CIT(A) in Verrenyam, sustained the said addition of₹ 24.78 Cr. (55-59, RP-59) ITAT dismissed the appeal of Verrenyam, hence the addition of ₹ 24.78 Cr. remains sustained in the hands of Verrenyam, which position continuous even as on date (54-55) It is the same 24.78 Cr. which was given by Verrenyam to assessee, which is the part of total addition of ₹ 26. 85 Cr. made in the hands of assessee (A.O. Pg.15, Para-12) Hence, ₹ 24.78 Cr. since already stands added in the hands of Verrenyam and the same amt. has been reed. by the assessee, therefore in the hands of the assessee, the source of said amt. stands fully explained w.r.t. provisions of Sec.68 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t NO.CS6209581l6 in Tis Hazari Court for recovery of ₹ 94,14,283/- outstanding as on 31.08.16 which is still in progress (60-85, RP-66) The fact that it is a intt. bearing loan, intt. has been allowed, TDS has been deducted, TDS has been deposited, TDS return has been filed, the civil suit has been filed by Varrenyam for the outstanding, proves that the assessee took a genuine loan from Varrenyam and not in the nature of an accommodation entry Further, in this case, the source of the source also stands proved, so far as assessee is concerned. Also, in the case of a loan and that too in A.Y.12-13, source of the source cannot be asked, which can be asked only w.e.f. A.Y.13-14 and that too in the case of receipt of share capital as provided in proviso to Sec.68 inserted w.e.f. A.Y.13-14 The assessee, thus has discharged his onus fully W.r.t. Sec.68 of the I.T. Act Income of Varrenyam AY 12-13 - ₹ 1.33 Cr. Documents of varrenayam ITR (45) PAN (30) Financial statements (19-29) Bank statements (31-39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 2013-14 onwards. ACIT VS. PREM ANAND (ITA O. 3514 / D / 2014) (DELHI ITAT ORDER DTD. 13.04.2017) 7.1. It is a settled law that the assessee is not answerable to explain source of source of the fund. In light of the fact that there is no cash deposit in the bank accounts of the three persons for advancing loan and their categorical admission confirming loan during the remand proceedings, we are oj the considered view that the loan aggregating to ₹ 38,50,000/- cannot be charged to tax in the Assessee's hands U/S 68 particularly in absence oj any contrary evidence brought on the record by the AO. Hence, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the assessee is not required to explain source of source of the fund gets buttressed by the amendment made in section 68 with effect from 01.04.2013, which empowers the AO to examine source of source in case of share application money from 01.04.2013. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the revenue authorities alongwith written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the case laws cited by both the parties. We note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
