9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e summons were not made. Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of the fact that there was no compliance to summons issued u/s 131 to the assessee as well as subscribers when all the corroborating evidences are furnished before the authorities. We find support from the following decisions of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [ 1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] , Orchid Industries Ltd. [ 2017 (7) TMI 613 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (7) TMI 841 - KOLKATA HIGH COURT] , M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd .[ 2016 (3) TMI 1073 - ITAT KOLKATA] - Thus, direct the AO to delete the addition. Addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) - HELD THAT:- We note that during the year the assessee has earned dividend income only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereafter the AO issued a final show cause notice on 25.02.2015 which was complied with by the assessee. Thereafter the AO noted that there was no compliance to the summon issued u/s 131 of the Act and therefore, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus to prove the transaction. Finally the AO made the addition of Rs. 1,85,30,000/- to the income of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained cash credit besides making an addition of Rs. 69,410/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the act dated 27.03.2015. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by noting that there was non-filing of required details called for by the AO beside non-production of the investor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no application of mind by the AO at the time of assessment and similarly in the appellate proceedings also the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition despite the assessee specifically pointing out that out of Rs. 2,49,92,000/- shown as equity share as on 31.03.2012 by the assessee, a sum of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- adjusted towards allotment of shares was actually received in the earlier assessment year and therefore cannot be considered as addition under section 68 of the Act. The assessee filed a details before the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.06.2016 wherein the issue has been elaborately discussed in page 1 and 2 of the written submission. We note that even qua money raised from four subscribers, all the documentary evidences including assessments framed u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below have failed to carry out any investigation and enquiry on the documents furnished by the assessee as well as by the subscribers and merely harped on the fact that compliance to the summons were not made. In our opinion, the AO as well as ld CIT(A) acted in total disregard to the facts on records as even the money raised during the earlier assessment year was added u/s 68 and confirmed which was to the tune of Rs. 1,72,00,000/-. Moreover, the addition cannot be made merely on the basis of the fact that there was no compliance to summons issued u/s 131 to the assessee as well as subscribers when all the corroborating evidences are furnished before the authorities. We find support from the following decisions in our conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
