9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness in AY 2016-17 and that there is no credit transaction pertaining to the sum so advanced to Santosh Trust in the year under consideration. Provisions of Section 68 are attracted only in the case of cash credits in the relevant year of credit. In the present appeal before us, admittedly it is a fact that there is no credit for the amount which has been held to be an unexplained liability. The transaction of advancing the amount to Santosh Trust pertains to Assessment Year 2016-17. We do not find any infirmity in the factual finding arrived at by ld. CIT(A) directed to delete the additions so made. The findings so arrived at is fortified by the decision of Ivan Singh [2020 (2) TMI 850 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] which observed that "from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,00,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that geniuses of the transaction was not established even in third party verification?" III. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- without getting the new facts which were not submitted before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, such as the fact of negative sign not being put before the outstanding figure, verified by the AO?" 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of health care catering to therapeutic segment. It is a 100% subsidiary of B. Braun Medical Ind. Sdn. Bhd., Malaysi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal income of the assessee as un-explained liability u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who took note of the above stated facts and verified the same with the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) found that there had been no credit received by the assessee which is factually verifiable and thus held that addition made u/s. 68 is unwarranted and directed the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the same. 5. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, ld. Sr. DR submitted that assessee had given contradictory replies in the course of proceedings, while furnishing the details against the show cause notices issued by the ld. Assessing Officer which has led ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot the one where it has received the amount and is a liability. Furthermore, it is claimed that assessee has written off this amount as a bad debt/business loss in the books of accounts for the year ending 31.03.2024 relevant to Assessment Year 2024-25. It is noted that the amount was advanced by the assessee in its ordinary course of business in Assessment Year 2016-17 and that there is no credit transaction pertaining to the sum so advanced to Santosh Trust in the year under consideration. Provisions of Section 68 are attracted only in the case of cash credits in the relevant year of credit. In the present appeal before us, admittedly it is a fact that there is no credit for the amount which has been held to be an unexplained liability. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
