TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 579
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Rs. 11,18,019 u/s. 68 of the Act in A.Y. 2004-05. In these A.Ys., the amount mentioned herein below is said to have been received back in this assessment year though the money was advanced in the earlier assessment year from the following parties: A.Y. 2003-04 Sl. No Name Amount (Rs.) 1. Sri Duvvuru Subba Reddy 5,20,000 2. Sri Alluru Linga Reddy 5,60,000 3. Sri Ch. Penchal Reddy 4,75,000 4. Advance received from sale of land 4,00,000 5. M/s. KSM Ventures 1,40,000 Total 20,95,000 A.Y. 2004-05 Sl. No Name Amount (Rs.) 1. Sri Madhusudan Reddy 4,58,019 2. Sri D. Venkata Subba Reddy 60,000 3. Gift from family members 6,00,000 Total 11,18,019 4. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not furnished names and addresses of the parties from whom the loans have been received back. Before the CIT(A) the assessee pleaded that the assessee could not furnish the details before the Assessing Officer as the transactions were very old and the details were not readily available though it was explained that the receipt of money is on account of advance of the amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer in the Remand Report vide its letter dated 9.3.2012 which has been received by the CIT(A) through the Addl. CIT vide his letter dated 30.3.2012. According to the lower authorities the amount received from Sri Madhusudan Reddy is only supported by confirmation letter and there is no details of bank account or income-tax assessment and the transaction is only through cash. In respect of Sri Duvvuru Subba Reddy, the letter bears name as Duvvuru Venkata Subba Reddy instead of Duvvuru Subba Reddy. Hence the lower authorities doubted the genuineness of the transaction and added the same to the income of the assessee. 7. Before us the learned AR submitted that the assessee filed all the requisite information to prove the identity of the parties, genuineness of the transactions and capacity of the lenders. Further he submitted that in case of gift received from family members who are close relatives of the assessee and the amount was gifted according to the Hindu customs and during the religious ceremony. He submitted that the parties have furnished the confirmation letters for gifting the same to the assessee. According to the AR these are genuine gifts from family members and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts received in A.Y. 2004-05, the assessee pleaded before us that these gifts of Rs. 6 lakhs received by the assessee from his family members and they are income-tax assessees and it is duly reflected in their financial statement of the respective donors. Herein also the assessee pleaded before the Assessing Officer that the gift was received from assessee's parents. However, this contention was changed before the CIT(A) that it was received from Sri A. Girish Reddy (brother) Rs. 25,000, Smt. Sulochana (mother) Rs. 5,00,000, Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy (father) Rs 30,000 and other relatives Rs. 45,000. Though it was pleaded that there were enough drawings from these parties to make the gift to the assessee, however, the assessee failed to establish specific withdrawal which indicates gift to the assessee. Further, considering the status of those donors, drawings made by them is not enough to make gift to the present assessee. In the case of other gifts, the assessee has not provided the basic details like names, identity and addresses of the parties. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in confirming the addition made u/s. 68 in respect of these gifs. Accordingly, the addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) called for Remand Report from the Assessing Officer and in the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer also given ample opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Being so, we do not find merit in the argument of the assessee's counsel that there is violation of principles of natural justice. In the result, ITA No. 1238/Hyd/2012 is dismissed. ITA No. 1239/Hyd/2012 - By assessee A.Y. 2006-07 14. In this appeal, the assessee raised the ground with regard to confirming addition of Rs. 4.2 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act by the CIT(A). The assessee also raised the ground with regard to violation of principles of natural justice. In this year the assessee is said to have received gift from the following parties: Sl. No Name Amount (Rs.) 1. Sri A. Girish Reddy 25,000 2. Smt. A. Sulochanamma 1,00,000 3. Sri Audinarayan Reddy 1,00,000 4. Other petty gifts from relatives 1,95,000 Total 4,20,000 15. The assessee pleaded before us that these gifts are received from close relatives and these donors have enough source of income to make the gifts to the assessee. However, we find that even during the course of assessment proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transaction between M/s. AMRCL, Sri P. Muddukrishna Reddy and Sri Mahesh Reddy made through Sri P. Muddukrishna Reddy attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. He was of the opinion that the funds of the company M/s. AMRCL has flown to the third person Sri P. Muddukrishna Reddy under the guise of subcontract works and there from flown to Sri A. Mahesh Reddy and his family members who have substantial interest in a company in the form of advance, resulting in shareholders getting benefit of accumulated profit of the company M/s. AMRCL. Accordingly, he made addition u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the same. 19. The learned AR submitted in respect of amount received from Mr. P. Muddukrishna Reddy, that the said person, in fact, appeared before the assessing officer and confirmed the factum of advance given to the assessee. Sri P. Muddukrishna Reddy further stated that the said advances were given for purchase of property/shares in M/s. AMR Constructions Ltd. He also furnished the details of his sources of income, income tax particulars etc., to the assessing officer. However, the assessing officer proceeded to treat the proprietary concern of the said perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the assessee were confirmed by the creditor who is assessed to income tax, filing his returns before the department. The very fact that the creditor was income tax assessee in his own right, filing his returns showing income from various sources, is a prima facie evidence about his credit-worthiness and the assessee is not expected to make any further enquiries in to the exact sources of his income or the amount lent. It is further submitted that, as held by various courts, the assessee had discharged his primary onus where the amount representing the credit in question was received from a person assessed to tax, his Income Tax particulars and written confirmation from such person were filed before the Assessing Officer. On similar facts, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC), wherein the assessee filed before the assessing officer, the letters of confirmation in respect of loans taken and particulars of the different creditors whose general index numbers were with the Income-tax Department, the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee had discharged the burden cast upon him in terms of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on facts and in law and it is accordingly prayed that the addition be deleted. 23. The learned DR submitted that from the information furnished by the assessee, the amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- was shown to have obtained as advance for purchase of land but no such information was submitted by the assessee or the creditor, either during the course of assessment proceedings or appeal proceedings. There is no information furnished as regard to purchase/allotment of shares in any of the group/concerns. Though it is a fact that Mr. P. Muddukrishna Reddy was examined and a statement was recorded during the course of assessment proceedings wherein he has confirmed the advances given for the purpose of purchase of land, the corroborative evidence is not available on record to indicate the genuineness of the transaction. As against the transaction of the creditor with the assessee group in the subsequent assessment years, the transaction for the year under reference is made by cash. Further, it is a fact that Mr. P. Muddukrishna Reddy has started executing the sub-contract works for M/s AMR Constructions Ltd, the flagship company of the group only in the subsequent years which has fetched....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to lend the amount to the assessee. In absence of the complete information as regard to the facts, the case laws relied upon by the assessee will not come to his help. It is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (214 ITR 801), wherein it was held that the information of the transaction is based upon the tests of human probabilities. In this case, the assessee could not furnish the information related to the purported transaction of land purchases for receiving the advances as credit, with the genuineness of the transaction also unproved on account of receipts of such amounts in cash. Further, the creditworthiness of the creditor was not established with reasonable evidence or explanation. Under the circumstances, he submitted that the action of the Assessing Officer is justified in treating the amount of credit from Mr. P. Muddukrishna Reddy as unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee as per the provisions of sec. 68 and the ratios of the decisions cited by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order will support the stand taken by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer by treatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espective confirmation letters in the case of M/s. AMR Hospitality Services Ltd. The Assessing Officer also recorded statement from Sri Muddukrishna Reddy and Sri C. Hanumantha Reddy. The same has been routed through banking channels. Similarly in the case of Sangam Sugar Ventures Ltd., Smt. B. Sugunamma, Sri C. Hanumantha Reddy and Sri Damodar Reddy have filed their confirmation letters. Sworn statement was also recorded from Sri C. Hanumantha Reddy. They are income-tax assessees. In spite of this, the Assessing Officer doubted genuineness of the transactions. The contention of the Assessing Officer is that these persons are name lenders and were used as a ploy by the director of the assessee company to rout the unaccounted money of the flagship company to the director by bringing the money in their names. It is also recorded by the Assessing Officer that these name lenders having filed their returns of income only to explain the investment so as to facilitate the conversion of unaccounted money into the assessee's company. It was also alleged that the money was routed like this as a device to explain the investments. However, the fact is that these persons who have made investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the present case considering the facts of the case, as the Department failed to show that the Share Application Money actually emanated from the coppers of the assessee company, addition was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) and the action of the CIT(A) is confirmed." 28. The facts in the present case are similar to that one considered by the Tribunal in the case cited supra. Being so, in our opinion, the transaction between Sri A. Mahesh Reddy and Sri P. Muddukrishna Reddy is business transaction and it was disclosed in their books of account. The burden cast upon the assessee to prove identity of parties, genuineness of transactions and capacity of creditors has been discharged. Being so, considering the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of R.B. Mittal cited supra we are inclined to delete this addition. 29. With regard to invoking provisions of section 2(22)(e), it is brought to our notice that there was a subcontract between Sri P. Muddukrishna Reddy and M/s. AMRCL and it was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer did not bring on record the fact that no work was carried on by Sri P. Muddukrishna Reddy as per subcontract from M/s. AMRCL and payment wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e's Paper Book pages 47 to 57. The Balance Sheet is giving final statement of M/s. MVS Developers. Schedule No. III to Balance Sheet reflects loans to subsidiary companies at Rs. 1,36,48,000 as on 31.3.2007. The plea of the assessee is that this amount includes an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs advanced to the assessee. The lower authorities could have called for ledger account details of this account. Without verifying the ledger amount bifurcation of Rs. 1,36,48,000, it was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee cannot be a subsidiary of MVS Developers. The assessee is being an individual, in our opinion, it is appropriate to verify the ledger account relating to these loans and advances. Accordingly, we remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-verification and decide the issue in accordance with law. 34. The next addition is with regard to Rs. 11,70,000 received from M/s. NR Constructions. With regard to this there is no information or confirmation brought on record to indicate genuineness of the transaction. Being so, placing reliance on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of R.B. Mittal (cited supra), we are inclined to confirm the addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of Rs. 2,94,81,000/-from Sri Jayaram Reddy, that the amounts received from Sri Jayaram Reddy were through banking channels and the assessee confirmed the said payments during the assessment proceedings. It was clarified that the assessee received Rs. 5,25,00,000/- from Mr. Jayaram Reddy during the assessment year as per the receipts and payment account and the said amount was received as advance against proposed sale of shares and immovable property and since the transaction did not materialize, a sum of Rs. 3,80,19,000/- was repaid to him. The said person was summoned during the assessment proceedings and statement was recorded from him, during which it was confirmed by the creditor that the said amount was invested/advanced by his son Mr. Hanumantha Reddy out of his income. In view of the fact that Hanumantha Reddy was assessed to tax in his own right, the amount advanced by him, on behalf of his father, cannot be treated as unexplained credit in the case of the assessee and the taxability, if any, has to be examined in the hands of such other person, who advanced the money, by his Assessing Officer concerned, as per the submission of the assessee. 40. On the other hand t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the subject on conduct of the assessee as disclosed in sworn statement as well as other material on record, to draw an inference that could be reasonably drawn on an issue, which broadly deals with human probability. Applying the ratio of the decision cited supra and based on the facts of the case, wherein the portion of the credit was already admitted as unexplained income of the assessee, the addition of Rs. 2,94,81,000 in the form of unexplained credit has to be sustained. 41. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case the amount was advanced by Sri Jayaram Reddy through cheque to the assessee. The assessee received Rs. 5.25 crores from Sri Jayaram Reddy as advance against the proposed sale of shares and immovable property. Since the transaction not materialised, a sum of Rs. 3,80,19,000 was repaid to him and balance was outstanding. This fact was confirmed by Sri Jayaram Reddy and Sri Jayaram Reddy received this amount frm his son Sri Hanumantha Reddy who is proprietor of M/s. HR Constructions. Sri Jayaram Reddy also confirmed this fact in the statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act. The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion is by cash, which also do not explain the genuineness of the transaction prima facie. Further, the assessee was not in a position to explain the land transactions associated with such advances and their repayment between the assessee and the creditor. Provisions of Section 68 put the onus on the assessee to explain the transactions with reference to the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, apart from the genuineness of the transaction. Under the circumstances, the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the credit of Rs. 20,00,000 shown in the name of Sri Surendra Babu stood unexplained and as such the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the amount as the income of the assessee by treating it as unexplained credit. 44. We have heard the rival submissions. In our opinion, mere filing of confirmation letter does not discharge the assessee in proving the genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the creditor. Only identity is proved. Hence placing reliance in the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of R.B. Mittal (cited supra), we confirm the addition. 45. The next addition is with regard to Rs. 3,15,000 made in the name of Smt. Saroja. Brief fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee relied upon certain instances/issues, as under:- a) The share of the investment of the group is indicated to be Rs. 625 lakhs as per seized material, whereas the actual investment in shares stood at more than Rs. 750 lakhs. b) The loan repayment to DHFL was shown at Rs. 13 crores in the seized material whereas it is only Rs. 8 crores that was repaid till March, 2008. c) The assessee never shared any project or venture on 50% basis with Mr. Ravi or any other person, whereas the seized material indicate such sharing as 50:50 basis. 49. As against the above stand of the assessee, the A.O. tried to disprove the same and prove the reliability of the contents of the seized material by following findings/observations:- (i) Names in the seized material like Krishna Murthy, Charlie, Doraikannan and descriptions like 'due diligence report', belong to M/s. AMRLITL. (ii) By confirming that the total investment in M/s AMRLITL at Rs. 7.5 crore as against the figure of Rs. 625 lakhs as narrated in the seized material, the assessee accepted the contents of the seized material. (iii) The statement recorded from Sri Ravi Kumar Reddy, confirming the sharing of investments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... himself, the A.O. has decided not to conduct any enquiry to establish the alleged expenses mentioned in the loose sheets and instead judged this addition entirely on presumption that the assessee must have incurred the expenditure. It was also submitted that on the other hand the assessee has proved the entries with the documentary evidence that the figures mentioned were not correct and it is a settled principle of law that the entries in loose sheets are not conclusive evidence unless corroborated by other evidence. 52. While continuing the submissions the AR highlighted the provisions of section 69 with reference to relevant judicial decisions. For the purpose of applying the provisions of section 69C, it was contended that the incurrence of expenditure has to be conclusively established by the AO. In this regard, the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shahad Lookman Quadir (3 ITR (Trib) 177). It was also reiterated that no independent material or evidence has been brought on record by the A.O. to establish that the notings recorded in the loose sheets of the seized material represented the actual unaccounted expenditure and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me pertain to M/s. AMRLITL 625.00 Total expenditure 1773.38 Less Amounts reflected in personal accounts of group members (Balance Sheet & receipts & payments account filed during respective assessment proceedings 1406.19 Balance 367.19 Less Cash received by AMR as per seized slips 193.10 Net amount warranting addition 174.09 55. Regarding the claim of credit for cash received to the tune of Rs. 1,93,10,000/-, it was claimed that seized document should be read in toto and all the entries therein should be given due credit in order to arrive at a reasonable inference. It was contended that the seized material in question, contain the details not only of the expenditure incurred but also the amounts received from Mr. Ravi, the other investor and since the exact dates of expenditure and receipts in cash are not available in the seized material, it cannot be held with certainty as to whether the expenditure preceded the receipt of cash or vice versa and in view of the fact, a benefit of doubt should be granted to the assessee and as such the cash received by the assessee should be treated as cash available with him as a source for the part of the expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fact that the said transactions were accomplished by date of search during which loose sheets were seized and there is no merit on the dispute of incidence of expenses with reference to the word used 'paid' & 'incurred', since the major head is indicated in the seized material denote the amounts incurred by AMR and the other promoter. 57. Though it is a fact that the A.O. did not carry out any enquiries to prove the nature of transactions and the actual amounts associated with each entry, the contents of loose sheet broadly indicate the nature of the entries and the amounts spent by each of the promoter. Further, what has been decided by the A.O. was the unexplained expenditure in M/s AMRLITL, by excluding certain amounts related to HMT project, thus the amounts determined are shown to be the amounts spent exclusively for M/s AMRLITL by the two promoters. It is a fact that the period of expenditure was primarily determined by the Assessing Officer based on the information relatable to the repayment of loans obtained from DHFL, which were taken out of the amount of unexplained expenditure determined by the AO that is relatable to M/s AMRLITL and in absence of any specific perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Add: Investments as related to AMRLITL, which was excluded by the AO. Rs. 625.00 lakhs Total Rs 1773.38 lakhs 60. The CIT(A) observed that as indicated above and as could be seen from the seized material and the assessment order, there is no clear cut indication as far as period of investment/ expenditure is concerned and in absence of specific information and based on relatable information, the year of investment/ expenditure is determined to be the Asst. Year 2008-09. Further, the amounts of expenditure as indicated in the seized material and as per the findings of the A.O. in the assessment order, there is no clarity as to the nature of the expenditure i.e. whether it is capital or revenue in nature and in absence of such clarity, it is difficult to accept it as revenue expenditure so as to be treated as unexplained expenditure. In this case, the assessee has brought in the investments/amounts contributed by the assessee along with other family members shown as the promoters in M/s AMRLITL, to explain the sources for the amounts that have been treated as unexplained expenditure by the A.O. The explanation offered by the assessee appears reasonable and as such the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestment incurred by the assessee which stood unexplained is quantified at Rs. 367.19 lakhs and the same is confirmed to be the unaccounted income of the assessee for the year under reference since the assessee failed to explain the same with reference to the sources. Accordingly, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of 367.19 lakhs as against Rs. 734.19 lakhs, made by the A.O. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. 62. The learned AR submitted that what was disputed was the reliability of the figures mentioned in the loose sheets in question by pointing out certain errors, with documentary evidence. He submitted that the assessee had produced evidence, with reference to certain investment/ payments, in support of the contention that the figures mentioned in the impugned document, were not based on correct appreciation of facts but only based on estimate or out of memory. The fact that the actual amount invested/paid was different and not as per the loose sheets was not controverted by the assessing officer. On the other hand he accepted this position. He submitted that the assessing officer had misdirected himself and misapplied the well settled principle ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly, the condition precedent as to the incurrence of expenditure has to be conclusively established by the assessing officer before invoking the said section. The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal held, in the case of Asst. CIT v. Shahzad Lookman Qadir (3 ITR (Trib) 177), that the burden was on the Department to show that the expenditure had been actually incurred which was not explained and as such any addition on that account was not sustainable where the assessee gave a reasonable explanation but the Assessing Officer failed to produce any evidence to show that the assessee had actually incurred any expenditure which was not accounted for. In the instant case, the addition was made as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C solely based on notings in certain loose papers found during the search operation. The impugned papers were not written by the assessee but were simply typewritten. Further, neither any dates were mentioned against the said entries nor were the papers signed by the assessee. The assessee had produced evidence, with reference to certain investment/payments, in support of the contention that the figures mentioned in the impugned document, were not based on correct apprec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... verification by the Assessing Officer. 67. The AR also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Asst. CIT v. Satyapal Wassan (295 ITR (AT) 352) (Jabalpur) in support of the contention that where an assessee leads evidence for his explanation that the contents of the loose papers were not reliable, it is for the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise and not to go by surmises and as such the addition made would not be sustainable where the Assessing Officer does not carry out any enquiry on the subject, but simply assumes the figures in the papers as actual expenditure. In the case of CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah (307 ITR 137), wherein the assessee was stating, from the beginning, that the notings appearing in the diary were rough estimates and estimation was made for submission to the bank for obtaining a loan from the bank, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that the inference of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had received on- money, i.e., the differential amount as shown in the seized diary and the books of account, was merely based on suspicion and surmises and there was no material to support the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... family members of the assessee which is given in the above table. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee that the document seized contains incorrect figures and cannot be a basis for addition in view of various decisions cited above. The CIT(A) also did not give relief on the availability of source of Rs. 1,93,10,000 to the assessee for meeting various expenditure recorded in the dumb document in as much as no dates were available in respect of both the alleged receipts or expenditure. 71. The AR respectfully submitted that in view of the detailed submission made above, the order of the CIT(A) to the extent of sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,67,19,000 is erroneous and illegal. The CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition made by the AO as the addition is based on surmises and conjectures without going into any of the submission of the assessee. He submitted that neither AO nor the CIT(A) have made efforts to look into the question as to whether any addition can be sustained based on the dumb document in as much as the assessee had already recorded entire expenditure/ investment in the regular books of accounts. Accordingly, he prayed that the addition sust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee has carried on money lending business." 75. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. In the result, ITA No. 1241/Hyd/2012 is partly allowed. ITA No. 1437/Hyd/2012 - By Revenue A.Y. 2008-09 76. The first ground in this appeal is with regard to addition of Rs. 1.89 crores received from Sri N. Srinivasa Rao. Brief facts of the issue are that in case of Sri Srinivasa Rao Nukala (N. Srinivasa Rao), a sworn statement was recorded on 01.10.2010 wherein details regarding the sources of investments and the activities of Sri Srinivasa Rao were enquired and it revealed that Sri Srinivasa Rao carried on sub-contract works for M/s. AMR Constructions Limited (for short AMRCL), the flagship company of the group, in the name of M/s Live-in Shelters Pvt. Ltd, (for short LSPL), and M/s Reliant Metropolitan Developers Pvt Ltd (for short RMDPL), wherein Sri Srinivasa Rao is a Director. Based on the findings and the contents of the sworn statement recorded from Sri Srinivasa Rao, the Assessing Officer has arrived at the conclusion that Mr. A. Mahesh Reddy, the Managing Director of M/s AMRCL and his family members have used....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,89,00,000/- made on account of amount standing in the name of Mr. Srinivasa Rao Nukala, as unexplained credit is not sustainable. 78. On the issue of application of provisions of section 2(22)(e) for bringing the amounts received from Sri Nukala Srinivasa Rao to tax, the CIT(A) held that the provisions u/s 2(22)( e) create a deeming fiction to treat the otherwise non- taxable receipts as taxable dividends, thereby, creating a liability for the assessee. Provisions of Section 2(22)( e) are deemed in nature and are applicable to special situations which are needed to be fulfilled on cumulative basis such as:- (a) advancement of loan or advance by a company to a shareholder being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power or to any concern in which such share holder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest. (b) any payment by company on behalf or for the individual benefit of any share holder. (c) the amount is to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. 79. The CIT(A) observed that in this case, the Assessing Officer tried to apply the situation mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed its opinion that in case where the share applicants were to be considered genuine, the right course for the Assessing Officer is to identify the real person to whom the money belong and assess him to tax instead of assessing the company and as such there was no justification for assessing the company. Further, the ratio of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tania Investments (P) Ltd. (322 ITR 394) is squarely applicable in this case, wherein the creditors were examined by the Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings, who maintained the books of accounts, which could not have been brushed aside. 43. Further, it may be relevant to note that the contract works awarded by M/s AMRCL wasdisbelieved and the additions were made in the hands of M/s AMRCL on the said account. Further, the amount of contract receipts appears to have already suffered tax in the hands of the company, as such there is no basis for making the addition originating from the same amounts in the hands of the assessee, being the loanee. On this count, the addition of Rs. 18,00,000 made on account of amount standing in the name of Mr. Srinivasa Rao Nukala, as unexplained credit is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was made by the assessee and his family members. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. In the result, ITA No. 1437/Hyd/2012 is dismissed. ITA No. 1242/Hyd/2012 - by assessee A.Y. 2009-10 85. Now we will take up ITA No. 1242/Hyd/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10. The first ground in this assessee's appeal is with regard to sustaining of addition of Rs. 55,21,778 u/s. 68 of the Act in the name of Sri A. Jayaram Reddy. This issue came for our consideration in ITA No. 1241/Hyd/2012 wherein we have deleted the addition. On the same reason, we are inclined to delete the same for this assessment year also. 86. The next ground is with regard to addition of Rs. 3 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act in the name of Sri N. Vijay Kumar. Brief facts of the issue are that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 was shown to have been received from Sri Vijay Kumar, toward advance for sale of land. The CIT(A) observed that though it was submitted by the assessee that a part of the said amount was repaid during the year, it is a fact that the said amount was received in cash and the same were not properly explained or confirmed by the assessee as well as the creditor with reference to the details of the transaction such as t....