Tribunal directs reassessment, allows presentation of evidence, and considers appeals allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' decisions and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine all issues raised in the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. The Tribunal instructed the A.O. to allow the assessee to present books of accounts and supporting evidence for verification. The appeals were considered allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 50,000 as unexplained credit in respect of shares issued to Shri Deepak Gupta.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 9,88,377 debited under the head "purchase account on account of mutation expenses."
3. Deletion of Rs. 50,000 addition made on account of unexplained source of share capital from Shri Anupam Nagalia.
4. Deletion of Rs. 10.41 lakhs addition made on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank account.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 50,000 as unexplained credit:
The assessee company disputed the addition of Rs. 50,000 received as share capital from Shri Deepak Gupta, which was part of a total addition of Rs. 1,00,000. The assessee explained that the amount was provided by Shri Anupam Nagalia and confirmed that the shares were issued accordingly. The company was incorporated with a share capital of Rs. 1,00,000, contributed by promoter shareholders. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) added Rs. 1,00,000 as unexplained cash deposit without calling for evidence. The CIT(A) sustained Rs. 50,000 of this addition, stating the identity of Shri Deepak Gupta was not proved. The Tribunal found that the A.O. and CIT(A) erred in their findings as the sum of Rs. 10,10,000 received from Shri Anupam Nagalia was through a cheque, and Rs. 1,00,000 was appropriated towards share capital for both Shri Anupam Nagalia and Shri Deepak Gupta. The Tribunal noted the need for proper examination by the A.O. and set aside the orders for reassessment.

2. Disallowance of Rs. 9,88,377 as mutation expenses:
The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 9,88,377 debited as mutation expenses. The A.O. disallowed the amount, stating the assessee failed to explain the source of these expenses. The assessee argued that M/s Vatika Limited incurred these expenses on its behalf, which was confirmed by M/s Vatika Limited. The CIT(A) sustained the addition due to the lack of supporting vouchers. The Tribunal observed that the expenses were indeed incurred by M/s Vatika Limited and debited to the assessee's account. However, due to the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal directed a re-examination by the A.O., requiring the assessee to produce books of accounts and vouchers.

3. Deletion of Rs. 50,000 addition from Shri Anupam Nagalia:
The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 50,000 addition made by the A.O. for unexplained share capital from Shri Anupam Nagalia. The assessee had received Rs. 10,10,000 from Shri Anupam Nagalia, out of which Rs. 50,000 was credited to the share capital account of Shri Anupam Nagalia and Rs. 50,000 to Shri Deepak Gupta, with the balance credited to the loan account. The Tribunal noted the A.O. did not verify the explanation properly and directed a fresh examination by the A.O.

4. Deletion of Rs. 10.41 lakhs addition for unexplained cash deposit:
The Revenue also challenged the deletion of Rs. 10.41 lakhs addition for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee explained that the cash deposited was from earlier withdrawals. The A.O. noted a gap of over two months between withdrawal and deposit and questioned the availability of cash. The Tribunal found that the cash book was not produced for verification. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to re-examine the matter, verifying the cash book and ensuring the availability of cash during the period in question.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities on all points raised in both the Revenue's and assessee's appeals. It directed the A.O. to re-adjudicate the issues afresh, allowing the assessee to produce books of accounts and supporting evidence for verification. The appeals were deemed allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 22.8.2014.

---