9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rs. 10,77,00,000/- on account of share application money received treating the same as unexplained income taxable u/s. 68 of the Act; 2. Rs. 57,72,41,461/- being the amount of unsecured loan treating the same as unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act; 3. Rs. 1,55,15,178/- on account of interest paid on unsecured loans on conjectures and surmises; 4. Rs. 13,00,000/- being the amount of cash deposited in bank treating the same as unexplained; 5. Rs. 6,88,872/- disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act. All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous, unlawful and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30.9.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 6,60,57,34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As regards the addition of Rs. 1,55,15,178/- is concerned, AO observed that assessee is paying interest on loans and is diverting these funds for non-business purposes and assessee has not been able to show how the funds were used for business purposes, hence, the addition of Rs. 1,55,15,178/- was made. As regards, addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act is concerned, the AO observed that Assessee did not given any explanation about the source of cash deposited and AO in the remand report has justified the addition. As regards the addition of Rs. 6,88,872/- u/s. 14A of the Act is concerned, the assessee has earned dividend income and has not shown any expenses in relation to the said income. The assessee has stated that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the assessee and also has not filed any contrary evidence for the claim of the assessee. He requested that keeping in view of the non-consideration of the documents by the authorities below, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled and addition in dispute may be deleted. 3.1 As regards other grounds are concerned, Ld. Counsel for the assesee almost argued in the same way as argued in ground no. 1 as aforesaid and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has not considered, examined and appreciated the evidences filed by the assessee in support of the claim of the assessee, hence, he stated that additions involved in other grounds may also be deleted. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the revenue authorities and stated that assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
