9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice with respect to the additions made in the assessment order to the assessee during the assessment proceedings and therefore, there was reasonable cause with the assessee in not filing the evidences before the Assessing Officer. The ITAT also noted that though the AO was given due opportunity under Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1961, yet the Assessing Officer did not make any proper averment with regard to the admission of additional evidences particularly when huge additions had been made which included the amount added under Sections 68 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) which were carried forward from the earlier years. Unexplained share capital and share premium, both the Appellate Authorities below deleted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the books or from undisclosed sources under Section 69 of the Act. Consequently, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Aggarwal Anr. vs. Thawar Das (through LRs) [ 1999 (8) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT] has reiterated that under Section 100 of CPC, the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Thus no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. - ITA 305/2022 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,31,27,449/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investments overlooking the fact that the assessee company made investment in new companies at much higher price than its real worth in the previous years and the year under consideration. 6. A perusal of the paper book reveals that both the Appellate Authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the Assessing Officer did not issue specific show cause notice with respect to the additions made in the assessment order to the assessee during the assessment proceedings and therefore, there was reasonable cause with the assessee in not filing the evidences before the Assessing Officer. The ITAT also note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thiness of the lender M/s. DMC Education Ltd. had been substantiated by the assessee by way of various documentary evidences. The ITAT observed that the finding of the CIT (A) based on proper appreciation of facts cannot be tinkered without any contrary material to rebut. 9. With respect to the addition of Rs.1,31,27,449/- on account of unexplained investments, the ITAT deleted the said additions on the ground that out of the said addition, amount of Rs.48,27,449/- pertained to the earlier year which was not in dispute and accordingly the CIT(A) rightly deleted the said amount from the addition made by the Assessing Officer and with regard to the balance amount, there is a clear finding based on material on record that investments had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
