2012 (10) TMI 811

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits especially when identity and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of transaction, could not be established. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in holding that the assessee had provided necessary details ignoring the fact that mere filing of assessment particulars does not tantamount to discharge of onus. iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any discrepancy, in the books of the assessee especially ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her loss or minimum profit. Assessing Officer further observed that from the details, it is clear that there is extreme resemblance in the mode of operation of all the four companies which have given cash credits to the assessee company. The identity of these creditors could not be proved. He further found that it could also not be proved by the assessee as to why these persons are operating from the same bank and giving cash credits to the assessee, filing return of loss / meager income and are not credit worthy to give the credits to the assessee. Assessing Officer further observed that from mere submission of returns which were filed on the same date it could not be ascertained as to whether these were actually credit worthy to extend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs, where there was no material for holding that such amount is undisclosed income of the assessee company. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) further referred to the decision of the C.I.T. vs. Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd. 319 ITR 5 and C.I.T. vs. Venkateshwar Ispat P Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 393 (Chhattisgarh). On the basis of these discussions and precedents, he held that addition needs to be deleted. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us.   6. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that assessee in this case has given confirmation letters from all the share applicants, their copy of bank statement which reflected that the amounts have been cleared ....