9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether any addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found in the course of search u/s 132 - The matter is covered in favour of the assessee by precedents in the case of PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] and Smt Shashi Agarwal [2024 (10) TMI 533 - ITAT LUCKNOW] as there is material on record to indicate that addition made by the AO was based on incriminating material found in the course of search u/s 132 of the Act. Appeal of Revenue stands dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urce of such share capital and share premium in view of the fact at the share capital and share premium were received in this year. In explanation some copies of confirmation of accounts purportedly in support of source of the said share capital and share premium. However, the documents furnished neither prove the identity and capacity of the persons claimed to have invested in the assessee company, nor the genuineness of such transactions, In these set of facts it is taken that the said sources of share capital and premium are not found as explained. Accordingly, the amount of share capital and share premium totaling Rs. 4,75,00,000/- is added to the assessee's total income as unexplained credits." 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies which are being statutorily audited. For the A.Y. 2007-08 assessment of the assessee i.e. Anubhav Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on an income of Rs. 443 rounded off to Rs. 440 with NIL demand on 27-04-2009. It was mentioned that the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith requisition were issued on 25-07-2008. In response to above notices Shri Binod Agarwal, A/R of the Company appeared from time to time, filed necessary documents and evidences in support of the return of income. During the course of hearing the A/R submitted various details which have been test checked and kept on records. During the year the assessee company raised paid up share capital of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n upheld by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Steller Investment Ltd..." Therefore, after considering the above stated facts, I respectfully follows above mentioned case laws, the addition of Rs. 4,75,00,000/- is hereby deleted. These grounds appeal are allowed." 2.2 The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 31.12.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing before us, Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the addition made in the assessment order, relying on the assessment order. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on merits. He also submitted that no incriminating documents were found from the assessee's pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial found in the course of search u/s 132 of the Act; the matter is covered in favour of the assessee by precedents in the case of PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra) and Smt Shashi Agarwal vs DCIT (supra); as there is material on record to indicate that addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on incriminating material found in the course of search u/s 132 of the Act. In view of the foregoing and respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, we decline to interfere with the impugned appellate order dated 31.12.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/03/2025. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
