9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, which in turn has rightly been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order. CIT as well as Appellate Tribunal have rightly ordered deletion of the above-said amounts, because the respondent-Company had furnished all the required the details, and further held that it cannot be said to be an unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act of 1961. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. Disallowance of various expenses - The said disallowing is on a higher side and the same was considered by the learned CIT, and that the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 75,000/- and the respondent-Company got the relief of Rs. 75,000/-, which is completely justified in law. Disallowance of employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er order which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant. Cost of the appeal be awarded in favour of the appellant. 2. The respondent-Company (assessee) is engaged in the manufacturing trading of synthetic fabric and filed its e-return on 28.09.2015 declaring its total income as Rs. 1,14,56,120/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act of 1961 was issued on 27.07.2016 to the respondent-Company, and subsequently, another notice under section 142 (1) of the Act of 1961 was issued, which was duly was served to the respondent-Company, while fixing the date of hearing. 2.1 The respondent Company, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act of 1961 and disallowance of the interest of Rs. 24,658/-. 2.4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned CIT, the appellant preferred an appeal (I.T.A. No. 279/ Jodh/2018) before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, (in short, Appellate Tribunal ). The learned Appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 dismissed the said appeal. The copy of the said order was received on 10.02.2021. Thus, being aggrieved of the said order, the present appeal has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Department submits that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had made enquiry unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares; firstly, it issued 1,81,816 number of equity shares, and later, issued 3,40,665 number of equity shares, in total 5,22,481 number of equity shares each having face value of Rs. 10/- and share premium of Rs. 45/- and Rs. 50/- were issued to total 11 companies; the respondent-Company received a sum of Rs. 3,04,39,780/- on allotment of total 5,22,481 shares. 5.1. Thereafter, the appellant-Department issued the Assessment Order (AO) dated 29.12.2017, assessing the respondent- Company s total income as Rs. 4,20,76,100/-, and accordingly, the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act of 1961 were initiated. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Company preferred an appeal before the learned CIT, and the learned CIT vide ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous judgments. 2. Ld AO grossly erred in disallowing Rs. 150000 out of various expenses without appreciating that all the expenditure are supported by details, voucher and fully explained and considering the volume of business of the assessee. 3. The Ld AO grossly erred in disallowing Rs. 5540 of Employees Contribution to ESI without appreciating the fact that all the contributions are deposited on or before the due date of filing the return by the assessee. 4. The learned assessing officer has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the case on making addition of Rs. 25,00,000 on account of unsecured loan obtained from the shareholders and Rs. 24,658 which is interest on the same. 7.1. This Court further observes that the respondent-Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow that the respondent-Company introduced its own income from undisclosed sources in the form of shares; the assessment order was passed only on the basis of suspicion and doubt, which is not permissible under the law, as has rightly been held by the learned CIT in its order, which in turn has rightly been upheld by the learned Appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order. 7.3. This Court further observes that the learned CIT as well as learned Appellate Tribunal have rightly ordered deletion of the above-said amounts, because the respondent-Company had furnished all the required the details, and further held that it cannot be said to be an unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act of 1961. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
