9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessee from the aforesaid two parties was for sale of shares of a company by name Mag Impex Ltd., was not disbelieved either by the AO or the CIT(A). As far as the assessee is concerned, he has filed confirmation of Sherawali Corporation and Venkata Industries. CIT(A) has ignored this confirmation on the ground that the signature of the confirming parties were barely visible. The address of the confirming parties are very much available in the confirmation and if any doubt persisted on the veracity of the confirmation, then the proper course would have been to issue summons to the confirming parties to find out the truth or otherwise of the transactions on sale of shares on account of which monies were received by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmation, no adverse inference can be drawn by the AO - Appeal by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 52/Bang/2020 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2021 - SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Jr. Standing Counsel ORDER PER SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT : This is an appeal of the assessee against the order dated 27.08.2019 of CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal which was pressed for adjudication is the addition of ₹ 29 lakhs made by the AO being money deposited in the bank account of the assessee which was treated by the AO as income from undisclosed sour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es . 5. It was the case of the assessee that the Assessee received by RTGS (Bank Transfer) a sum of ₹ 8,00,000 ₹ 6,00,000/- on 10.2009 and 15.10.2009 respectively from Venkata Industries and ₹ 15,00,000/- on 19.9.2009 from Sherwali Corporation. The amounts in question were received by RTGS i.e., bank transfer and was not a cash deposit. The assessee also explained that the aforesaid receipts were on account of sale of shares of M/s. Mag Impex Pvt. Ltd. The confirmation from the purchasers were also filed. It was the plea of the assessee that the information received by the AO from Investigation Wing of the Department in Kolkata cannot be the basis to make any addition in the light of the evidence furnished by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d received deposits in cash totaling over ₹ 2.6 crores. Subsequently, the funds were transferred to other entities through fund transfer/RTGS. The finding of the STR was that M/s Sneha International was rotating the cash by transferring funds to entities where the proprietor of M/s Sneha International was a partner/proprietor/ authorised signatory for the purpose of layering and then transferring the cash to the ultimate beneficiary. As per the STR, the vo entities to whom M/s Sneha International transferred funds after receiving cash deposits were M/s Sherawali Corporation and M/s Venkata Industries. These two entities served as a layer for the transmission of funds to various beneficiaries, including the appellant. From the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 291 ITR 278(SC) and the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Singh 315 ITR 105(Del.). 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is clear from the orders of the revenue authorities that they not made any reference to the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. The case of the Revenue appears to be that M/s. Sneha International was rotating cash by transferring funds to various entities. M/s. Sneha International received cash and thereafter transfered funds to M/s. Sherawali Corporation and M/s. Venkata Industries who in turn transferred funds to the Assessee in the form of RTGS bank Transfer. The claim of the Assessee was that the receipts by the Assessee from the aforesaid two parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned DR is concerned in the decision rendered in the case of Mohana Kala (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the assessee did not contend with the material and circumstances available on record not justifying credit being treated as income. In the present case, I am of the view that the assessee has produced material evidence to show that the sum in question was received on account of sale of shares and no evidence has been brought on record to counter the plea of the assessee. In the case of Vikram Singh (supra), the Hon ble Delhi Court held that the facts and circumstances of the case established that transactions were dubious. As already stated, no such evidence has been brought on record in the present case except ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
