9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- made u/s..68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs.68,05,325/-." 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate development. The return of income declaring loss of Rs.(-) 16,71,492/- was filed on 03.12.2008. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.12.2010 determining total income of Rs.5,88,54,833/- after making addition of Rs.5,37,21,000/- under Section 68 of the Act and Rs.68,05,325/- being disallowance of expenditure claimed. Against the order under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 6. Ld AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that relevant evidences related to creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties were produced in the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act as well as assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee filed confirmation in respect of M/s. Jupiter Business Limited and M/s. Sudarshan Enterprise as well as ledger account of the said party from the various of assessee company, copy of bank statement of Shri Vinayak Sahkari Bank Limited for the subsequent year showing entries of repayment of loan as well as entries in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usal of records and the bank statement, it is seen that the assessee is showing only the bank statement related to the transfer of amount from these parties to the assessee and not that of the actual balance of M/s. Jupiter Business Limited and M/s. Sudarshan Enterprise. Thus, the first parameters of creditworthiness was never established by the assessee during the remand back proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the evidences and without verifying the creditworthiness granted relief to the assessee which is not just and proper. Hence, ground no.1 of the Revenue's appeal is allowed. 8. As regards ground no.2 related to deletion of disallowance related to expenditure, the Assessing Officer has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
