9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred both in eyes of law and facts in enhancing the addition to Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from Rs. 90,00,000/- as made by the Ld. AO. (iii) That the above addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) after changing the head of addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO, from income from other sources to section 68 of the Act. (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred both in eyes of law and facts in making addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act ignoring the fact that the appellant has already discharged its onus casted upon it u/s.68 of the act and further the transaction is independently investigated by the ld. Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s.133(6) of the Act." 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee company during the relevant year was not engaged in any kind of business activities. Ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings called for information u/s. 133(6) from different parties regarding transaction of share application money. In response to such inquiry, all parties filed their confirmation which were examined and verified by the Assessing Officer along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withdrawn from the bank account of the assessee through cash by four different transactions. Ld. CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to give comments after making inquiry in this case and Assessing Officer asked for furnishing various information, like cash payment, transaction for purchase of land, bank statement and the payment in cash to the property owner and the source of amount deposited in the bank account. In response, assessee provided the bank statement and the copy of cash book showing that payment of Rs. 90 lac was made after withdrawing from the same bank account. Regarding source of investment, he submitted that amount of Rs. 1.56 crore was received through Directors of the company, as under: S. No. Name of Director Amount Date of transaction 1. Renu Agarwal Rs. 15,00,000/- 17.01.2011 2. Arun Agarwal Rs. 1,50,00,000 25.01.2011 5. Accordingly, notice u/s. 133(6) were issued to both the Directors seeking information regarding source of transaction along with documents. In response, Shri Arun Agarwal submitted that Rs. 1.50 crores was given by him as share application money and Smt. Renu Agarwal has made payment of Rs. 15 lac as repayment of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained the source of these money in detail among other documents and also filed the following documents for establishing identity, creditworthiness of Shri Arun Agarwal as well as genuineness of the transaction, viz., confirmation, copy of his bank account, PAN details, etc. He further submitted that Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.133(6) to Shri Arun Agarwal which was duly responded by him, wherein he has confirmed the transaction and also filed copy of income tax return, copy of bank statement, etc. The Assessing Officer did not draw any adverse inference on these documents during the course of assessment proceedings. Thereafter, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the same submissions and the Ld. CIT(A) did not made any adverse inference regarding addition of Rs. 90 lac but has in fact made enhancement of Rs. 1.50 crore u/s.68 on the ground that share application money received from Shri Arun Agarwal was remained unexplained. She submitted that such an enhancement was beyond the scope and power of Ld. CIT (A), because the subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is addition of Rs. 90 lac made under the head 'income from other sources'. Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the share applicant. She also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 339. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as material referred to before us. As stated above, the only addition made by the Assessing Officer was with regard to the amount of Rs. 90 lac, on the ground that assessee could not prove the source of cash payments made to the various farmers. That addition prima facie was unsustainable in the wake of various material placed on record before the Ld. CIT (A) and also before the Assessing Officer that the amount of Rs. 90 lac was withdrawn from the bank account and thereafter, it was immediately paid to the seller and this was proved by way of sale deed, copy of bank statement, copy of cash book and ledger account. Even, the Ld. CIT (A) has finally not made any adverse inference, and in this manner such an addition stood deleted. Now, the issue before us is, the addition of Rs. 1.5 crore made u/s.68 on account of share application money received from the Director of the assessee company, Shri Arun Agarwal. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
