9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t granted properly for a decision in accordance with law. 2. Because according to Provisions of Section 153A/153C the sine-qua-non u/s.132 is material information in possession, whereas from the 'Material Facts' containing 'Material Particulars' the findings of facts emerge for no adverse material found for invoking and application of consequential search assessment proceedings. 3. Because the findings of CIT(A) are being challenged on facts and Law, since 'None Material' found attributable to the search and already accounted, recorded, disclosed and declared transactions are being 'charged to tax' whereby action is contradictory to the settled proposition of Law for 'chargeability of Income found as a consequence of Search'. 4.a) Because the findings of CIT(A) are being challenged on facts and Law, regarding invoking/applying the 'doctrine of lifting the corporate veil' and considering the investment in shares of SVP group as not genuine. b) Because the findings of CIT(A) are being challenged on facts and Law, since the same have been found in the conclusions, whereas never flowing from the order sheet entry and or any Notice issued by CIT(A). 5. Because the findings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and on facts in allowing assessee's appeal on merit, without considering the fact that the addition of Rs.1,55,19,800 made u/s 68 of the IT Act in the case of the assessee company was as a consequence of failure of the assessee to satisfactorily explain source of the credits in the books of account even after being given various opportunities during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing assessee's appeal on merit and directing the A.O. to make protective addition in the hands of assessee company, instead of substantive addition without appreciating the fact that the onus of proving the source of credits in the assessee's account was on the assessee which it did not discharge during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in applying the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tata Devi Agrawal Vs. CIT [1972] 88-ITR-323 [SC], even when this income was assessable in the hands of the assessee company as per provisions of section 68 of the IT Act 1961. 7. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be vacated and the assessment order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, SVP Group entities received share application money to the tune of Rs.93.63 crores during financial years 2002-03 to 2008-09. He observed that the main transactions were carried out by five flagship companies of SVP Group having real business and assets. Whereas, various other corporate entities like the assessee were used as conduits. He observed that these conduit companies simply received transfer of funds from 85 companies and immediately transferred such funds to the five flagship companies. Therefore, the entities like assessee did not generate any income from assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10. Thus, ultimately, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amount declared to have been invested by the assessee has to be assessed at the hands of the real beneficiaries i.e. the five flagship companies of SVP Group. Thus, he directed the assessing officer to delete the additions made at the hands of the assessee on substantive basis and to make such additions on protective basis, since, the substantive addition has to be made at the hands of the SVP group entities. 6. When these appeals were called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive basis and substantive addition in the hands of the beneficiary company. It was in fa c t incumbent on the Investigation Wing of the department and the AO to have investigated the destination of the mounts in circulation so that the beneficiaries other than the SVP group, if any, were identified and acted against as per law. The additions made under this head by the AO was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order. 4. As per direction of the Hon'ble Bench the details of appeals filed before the ITAT in the case of M/s SVP Builders (India) ltd. and SVP Developers ltd. were ascertained from the w e b site of the ITAT and it was seen that vide ITA Nos. 5324 & 5325/Del/2014, 4239, 4240, 4241,4242,4243, 4244, 4248 & 4249/Del/2012 these orders have already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble G-Bench of the ITAT Delhi vide order dated 29th April, 2014 . The decision of the appeals disposed indicates 'partly allowed' in all the cases. The afore mentioned order passed by the Hon'ble Bench consist of 18 Appeals filed by 4 Appellant companies emanating out of respective orders of the CIT(A) and pertain to assessment year 2003-04 to 2009-10. Since the issues involved in all these appeals were co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and explanation, this addition of Rs. 39,40,500/- is upheld" 20.3 we are in agreement with the above findings of CIT(A) and as such the additions made are upheld. The grounds raised by the appellants on this issue are therefore rejected. 5. The findings of the Hon'ble ITAT in the above mentioned order indicates that the additions made on substantive basis in the case of Five Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SVP Developers Ltd. & SV Liquor (India) Ltd. have been deleted and the order of the CIT(A) on this issue reversed. In view of the above the appeal in the case of Zodiac Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. in the aforementioned ITA Nos. which were directed to be made on protected basis by the Ld. CIT(A) needs to be adjudicated to protect the interest of revenue." 9. As could be seen from the aforesaid submissions of learned Departmental Representative, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had directed assessing officer to make the additions at the hands of the assessee on protective basis, since, according to him, substantive additions have to be made at the hands of the real beneficiaries i.e. the SVP Group entities. This is so because, according to learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
