9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned assessing officer with reasons. No infirmity is pointed out in the order of the first appellate authority. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in upholding the order of the learned first appellate authority. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned AO. Addition on account of transaction with Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The amount of ₹1.70 crores is part of the transaction of ₹2 crores which was part of the addition of ₹2 crores made in A.Y. 2015-16. As we have upheld the order of the learned CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹2 crore, we also confirmed the order of the learned CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹1.70 crores for the reason that it is part of the same transaction of ₹2 crores and further, it amounts to double addition of ₹1.70 crores made by the AO. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for this year. - SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM For the Assessee : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, AR For the Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No.4757/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 4758/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act) was issued on 16th March 2022. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted that the case was reopened on the basis of report in case of Swarnprakash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was found that director of that company operated bank account with AXIS Bank, wherein the funds were received from companies whose name have been struck off like Outstrip Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. The information also shows that Outstrip Suppliers Pvt. Ltd was a paper company formed for the purpose of providing accommodation entries only. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of the transaction with the above company; however, on 28th February 2022, it was stated that assessee has not done any transaction with the above company during the Financial Year 2014-15, relevant to A.Y. 2015-16.However, for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee has given an advance to that company for purchase of plot. The assessee furnished the ledger copy, from the bank statement of Outstrip Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. The learned Assessing Officer found that from a current account with Allahabad Bank of ₹2 crore has been transferred on 5th March 2015. This transaction was not found in the books of the assessee. The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pectively has been received from the entities who are stricken off companies like M/s Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. etc. Further, it is stated that funds which has been received in the said bank account got transferred to different entities and fund in this account remained minimal or negligible. It was also alleged by the AO that M/s Swarnprakash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. as well as its directors are not traceable and also M/s Swarnprakash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., never filed ITR for any year. AO further observed that on examination of the bank statement of M/s Swarnprakash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd, it was identified that source of fund of this company was from various entities which were also shell entities. One of these shell entities is M/s Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. which is having same financial pattern as M/s Swarnprakash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. This entity i.e., M/s Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. also have no financial creditworthiness. It was strike-off as per the data available with the MCA. It had also never filed any ITR, hence this company was also formed for dealing in accommodation entries only. Based on these observations, the Ld. AO concluded that M/s Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. is a pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en here under and this can be duly verified from the books of the account of the appellant. Hence, appellant has received Rs. 2,00,00,000/- which was given as advance to Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. The summary of the same is as under: Sr. No. Date of repayment Amount of repayment 13.06.2015 40,00,000 15.06.2015 30,00,000 16.06.2015 5,00,000 29.06.2015 45,00,000 22.10.2015 50,00,000 Total as on 31-03-2016 70,00,000 24.11.2016 12,50,000 24.03.2017 17,50,000 Total as on 31.03.2017 2,00,00,000 Therefore, on perusal of the entire transactions trail revealed that appellant has taken advance from VVF (India) Limited of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and the same amount has been given to Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of the land. However, due to cancellation of the transaction, appellant has repaid entire amount to VVF (India) Limited and subsequently M/s Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. has also paid back to the appellant. It is quite strange that the Ld. AO is not doubting the first part of the transaction that is the receipt of money by the appellant from VVF (India) and raising all doubts on the subsequent payment arising from the same amount to M/s Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th unexplained investment and section 69A deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. In the case of investments under section 69, the law giver contemplates the Assessing Officer finding that the assessee had made investments. In the case of section 69A, the assessee found to be the owner of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. In both cases, if the assessee is able to offer an explanation for the nature and source for investments and it is not found unsatisfactory, there can be no deemed income under either of the provisions. The apex court broke down section 69A into the following essential parts: a) The assessee must be found to be the owner; b) He must be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles; c) The said articles are not recorded in the books of account, if any maintained; d) The assessee is unable to offer an explanation regarding the nature and the source of acquiring the articles in question; or The explanation offered is found to be not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer; e) If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, then, the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of that company showing the amount of advance received and ledger account of that company. In response to the notice under Section 133(6) of the Act that the party has confirmed the action and also the number of receipts of the above transactions. The assessee has taken loan of ₹ 2 crores vide cheque dated 5th March 2015 and the same amount has been invested by the assessee in advance against loan on the same date to Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Further, the transaction could not be completed and therefore, in 6 tranches the amount of ₹2 cores was paid to VVF India Pvt. Ltd. and further, in 7 installments the Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. has also been repaid the amount of ₹2 crores. He referred to the copy of the account to show the above transaction. He stated that as the transactions could not be completed, the money was repaid by Outstripe Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. and also, assessee repay to VVF (India) Ltd. Both the parties have confirmed these transactions. He referred to the Provisions of Section 69A of the Act and submitted that the additions specified therein are not satisfied. On consideration of all this evidence, the learned CIT (A) has deleted the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it cannot be said that assessee is owner of the asset which is not recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of Section 69A of the Act are not satisfied as the assessee is not found to be the owner of any sum, which is not recorded in the books of account of the assessee. The learned CIT A has considered all the aspects of the above transaction and thereafter deleted the addition made under section 69A of the act by the learned assessing officer with reasons. No infirmity is pointed out in the order of the first appellate authority. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in upholding the order of the learned first appellate authority. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer. Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 012. Coming to A.Y. 2016-17 in ITA No. 4757/Mum/2023, the fact shows that assessee filed return of income on 4th May 2017, at ₹ 1,33,152/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny for reassessment by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31st March 2021. In this case, the learned Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 1,70,00,000/- to the total income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
