9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT , JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-15, Delhi dated 03.03.2017. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.20,35,000/- U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is otherwise sale proceeds of the assessee and suitably accounted for and explained. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the sustaining of addition amounting to Rs.20,35,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ]. FACTS OF THE CASE 5. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed its return of income, declaring total income of Rs.29,52,348/- on 30.09.2009. The case was taken up for scrutiny assessment. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto, Ld. Counsel for the assessee attended the proceedings and discussed the case with the Assessing Officer [ AO ]. It is recorded by the AO that the assessee company being a Non-Banking Financial Company Corporation and has credited interest of Rs.60,39,936/-. The assessee has also purchased and sold 46,100 shares of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact by observing as under:- 6. The following points emerged from the report of the AO and after considering the submissions made by the appellant:- i) Sale and purchase bills in respect of sale/purchase of shares M/s Urvashi Finvest Pvt. Ltd. by appellant were found not to have been seized during the course of search/seizure operation conducted in the case of Shri S.K. Jain group which shows that the reasons given by the appellant for submitting additional evidence were not correct. Even otherwise if these documents are taken on record they do not conclusively prove that transaction wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the loan taken from the appellant company and interestingly he has no other Investment in shares. It is also noted that Shri Manoj Aggarwal did not produce any bank statement though was asked so by the AO. iv) There was no compliance to the summons issues to M/s Sanchauli Mercantile and Investment Pvt. Ltd. It is also noted that against the sale of share of M/s Urvashi Finvest Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Sanchauli Mercantile and Investment Pvt. Ltd. which were sold vide bill dated 15.03.2009 for Rs.25,75,000/-, as per the ledger account the amount was received first on 31.03.2010 via Kotak Mahindra Bank the said cheque was returned and the entry in the ledger was reversed on 01.10.2010. The payment against the same was subsequently received/ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
