9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are that the information received from DDIT(Investigation), Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad that the assessee company has received Rs. 26,68,50,000/- in its bank account and has not filed its return for the Assessment year 2010-11. On the basis of such information, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee company after obtaining prior administrative approval from the PCIT, Gandhinagar. [4] The respondent - assessee has not filed any return in response to the notice and thus, order under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act was passed on 30th December 2017 by making addition of Rs. 26,68,50,000/- on account of unexplained money. [5] The Assessing Officer has observed that the amount in question has been received in the bank account of the assessee company from the account of two persons namely Ramesh G. Thakor and Smt. Hansaben M. Patel and thus, in absence of any other material, the Assessing Officer found that the credit entry of Rs. 26,68,50,000/- in the books of account of the assessee is remained unexplained and accordingly, the total income of the assessee company came to be computed at Rs. 26,68,50,000/-. [6] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained with Indian Bank, Navrangpura Branch, Ahmedabad has reflected the debit entry on this account by Cheque no. 525932 on 12.08.2009. The copy of the assessment order passed in the case of this person for AY 2010-11 has also been made available which has been carefully perused in the said assessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed u/s. 144 of the Act and aggregated credit entries of Rs. 6,80,50,635/- made in the said bank account were treated as unexplained and addition of Rs. 6,80,50,635/- was made by the LTO Ward-563)(4), Ahmedabad. The appellant has filed the copies of four sale deeds of the lands sold by Shri Mukesh J. Shah which reflected that he has sold the pieces of land situated at Sanathal village of Sanand Taluka and all the four sale deeds were registered with the SRO, Sanand on 03.07.2018 and all the payments were received by Shri Mukesh J. Shah through cheques drawn on Citi Bank and issued by M/s Applewood Estate Pvt. Ltd. (ii) Finding- On appraisal of these fresh evidences along with the submissions made by the appellant, the identity of Shri Mukesh J. Shah is proved beyond doubt as he appeared before the registering authorities for getting the sale deeds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 4.0, did not believe the same to be true only for the reason that the confirmation was given in the changed name of the company i.e. M/s. Ambe Trade Corp. Pet. Ltd. for which the appellant has now furnished the documentary evidences also. Finding: Since the loan transactions are through banking channels and taken by the appellant in the assessment year 2009-10 for Rs. 5,00,00,000/- which stood repaid in the assessment year under consideration, the same are to be treated as genuine. Further, in the remand report also, the A.O. has not doubted these transactions to be non- genuine. Considering these facts, the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- in respect of opening loan balance of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- in the books of the appellant as well as the giver-company is deleted. Accordingly, the part ground of appeal in relation to this addition is allowed. (D) Shri Kamal Gohil(Rs. 2,80,00,000/-) (i) In the assessment order, the A.O. has mentioned and reproduced relevant part of information and findings of DDIT(INV) Unit 1(3) Ahmedabad (pages 2 to 4 of the assessment order). Such information and finding does not show any transaction by or from R M Thakor with the appellant. The A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also through Shri Rameshbhai G. Thakor who received the money from other three persons also. Since the source (Shri Ramesh G. Thakor) and his source Le. Smt. Hansaben M. Patel for onward transmission has been held as proved, the additions made by the A.O. were deleted. Since the assessment made in the case of Smt. Hansaben M. Patel remained unchallenged by her(allegedly a missing person) through any appeal or revision before the concerned authorities, it has to be concluded that the source of source (Smt. Hansaben) has been duly taxed on substantive basis for which the copies of the assessment orders in the case of Smt. Hansaben and Shri Mukesh J. Shah have been placed on record in the appellate file of Shri Ramesh G. Thakor. In view of these facts, no addition in the case of the appellant can be sustained, though made on protective basis. Further, the provisions of section 68 of the Act as stood prior to its amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2013 stipulating for furnishing the explanation of the source (and not source of source in the case of the company) of the sums so credited in its books of accounts also do not require the verification of the source of the source for the assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Patel allegedly a missing person) by way of appeal or revision. Whereas in the case of Shri Rameshji Thakor that the alleged substantive additions made in his hands were also deleted by Ld. CIT(A) as the source was been clearly proved by the assesses. Thus we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee herein. More particularly, the provisions of Section 68 as it stood prior to the amendment of the Financial Act, 2013. Thus in our considered view, the grounds raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed." [8] Thus, being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellant - Revenue has approached this Court by way of this Tax Appeal. [9] We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the material produced on record. [10] At the outset, it is pertinent to note that one of the offshoot proceedings in connection with the present transaction has reached to this Court by way of Tax Appeal No.318 of 2022 at the instance of the Revenue against Ambe Tradecorp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 148 of the Act and accordingly the assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act where huge additions were made in the hands of the company on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act." 5.4 The Tribunal further stated that the findings of the Assessing Officer was not correct, observing thus, "Furthermore, once the source of fund in the hands of above company was held as explained by learned CIT(A) then amount received by the assessee from that company cannot be held as unexplained under section 68 of the Act in the absence of contrary information. Likewise, there cannot be addition of one item in the hands of two different persons." 6. Learned senior advocate attempted in vain to contend that the creditworthiness and genuineness of said M/s. Rachna Finlease Pvt. Ltd. was not established and that towards the share application money, the said party was a non-filer assessee company. It was sought to be argued that when the amount was given towards share application money, the assessee was not free from suspicion. Once the Books of Accounts and the facts reflected therein showed the source of the fund and the identity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
