9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds have been raised by the Revenue: "1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,34,173/- made by assessing officer on account of unrecorded sales, when loose papers seized during search indicated unrecorded cash sales, no cash memos were maintained for cash sales & on being confronted even the supervisor of the retail counter of assessee company admitted in his statement that all cash sales are not recorded in books of account. 3. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by assessing officer on account of unrecorded sales & lower G.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in relying on the decisions in cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia in the current case when these decisions are distinguishable on facts. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in, not upholding the assessment order passed u/s. 153A of the Act on the ground that no incriminating material was found during the search on the basis of which additions have been made by the assessing officer as held in the case of Kabul Chawla even when, the principal laid down in the Judgement of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla has not been accepted by the Revenue & S.L.P. there against has been filed which is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition, the AO has also relied on the statement of one Mr. Anand Sharma who purportedly and entry operator. The AO held that in view of the pre and post search proceedings, it was established that the assessee has sourced share capital from the paper companies having no profit generating apparatus and creditworthiness. Before the AO, the assessee has contested that the share capital received has been a matter of examination during the assessment u/s 143(3) in the regular course and hence in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized pertaining to the same share capital, no addition can be made. Disregarding the arguments of the assessee, the AO (4.11 of the order) held that as the deposits in the shape of share capital was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Vs. CIT 75 Taxmann 215, CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Arora 52 Taxmann 172 (All.), CIT Vs. Kesharwani Zarda Bhandar in ITA 270/2014 (All.), Dayawanti Vs. CIT 75 Taxmann 308 and Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493, Harish Textile Engineers Limited Vs. DCIT [379 ITR 160-Bom], Filatex India Limited Vs. CIT [49 Taxmann. Com 465-Del] 10. The ld. CIT(A) followed the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia 390 ITR 496 (Del)and CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del). The comments accepted by the ld. CIT(A) are as under: Title Name Date of Order Remarks Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT [390 ITR 496-Del] 27.10.2016 This order was passed prior to the date of order in the case of Meeta Gutgutia (which was passed by the Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. Page no. 10 of Annexure A-6. The assessee has also pointed out that it had never received any share capital/premium from M/s Jagprem Vypaar Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sundaram Distributors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Genius Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Chamundaji Sales Pvt. Ltd. the companies allegedly controlled by Sh. Anand Sharma as per statement. 12. Further, the ITR of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of such scrutiny proceedings, the then A.O. had made direct inquiries from the above named parties. After getting himself fully satisfied, the then A.O. had passed the assessment order u/s 143(3). It may be worth pointing out that the said assessment had attained finality, in as much as neither proceedings u/s 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.03.2010 found during the search action can be treated as incriminating material. There was no relation between the seized material and the share capital receipt. The AO could not point out to any incriminating material found during the search action on the basis of which the addition has been made. 15. The case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer have already been differentiated in the table mentioned above 16. In view of the above, in the absence of any incriminating material relating to AY 2010-11 and following the ratio of judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT (Central-Ill) vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) and PCIT (Central-II), New Delhi vs. Meeta Gutgutia 390 ITR 496 (Del) the action of the AO in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
