AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 952
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous. 2. The assessee had filed its returns for Assessment Year 2008-09 and was issued notice to show cause why certain additions to its claim ought not to be made for the concerned assessment years. This pertained to two amounts - Rs. 20,37,05,000/- and Rs. 4,32,07,394/-. Both were reflected in the bank accounts and related statements of the assessee, which was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of properties. The assessee explained that these amounts were consideration received either fully or in part and in some cases paid back during the concerned period and that everything was backed by documentary evidence. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the concerned material in the form of extracts of ledger, other books of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as advance and was paid back during the year. Here also complete details of the parties, confirmation copies, copies of cheques and income tax details were provided to the Ld. Assessing officer. 5) An amount of Rs. 1,07,05,000/- was received on account of sale of land. Copies of the conveyance Deeds relating to each sale were submitted. 6) Rs. 27,50,000/- was the amount of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee which was also treated as unexplained cash credit. 7) An amount of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- was deposited as advance received from parties as on 31.03.2008 and the same was reversed on the same day as the cheque was bounced. The cheques which bounced can never be credited to the party's account again and therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he deposits in the appellant's bank account. Here too the AO has floundered and made an addition of only part of the deposits in one bank account i.e. ABN Amro Bank. As decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd (2011) 14 Taxman 150 even where cash credits are proposed to be added to the income of the assessee each transaction is to be proved, verified and finding is to be arrived at individually. A bunch of transactions is to be proved, verified and finding is to be arrived at individually. A bunch of transactions cannot be clubbed together and added back. In case of CIT vs Gangaur Investment the Delhi High Court stated that an addition can be made u/s 68 of the appellant is not able to explain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant in the next year. The appellant has submitted all details in respect of the amount of Rs. 43,26,361/-. The amount was in respect of Taral Vincom Pvt. Ltd. a company which is having a genuine PAN No. and is assessed in Kolkata. The ITR/balance sheet were all on record and the amount in question was reflected in the accounts of the company. The identity of the company was proved, the creditworthiness was proved and the genuineness of the transaction were proved by the appellant. The addition of Rs. 4,32,07,394/- is therefore deleted. This ground of appeal is ruled in favour of the appellant . The rationale of the judgment in the case of Lovely Exports is applied here. Although this is not a case of shareholders but the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the bank accounts, there was no question of dubious credit entries. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lovely Exports, 216 CTR 195, it was submitted that the identity and genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the concerned parties had been established and that in these circumstances, the AO could not have included these amounts which was received in the course of the business under Section 68. 6. This Court noticed that the ITAT in turn conducted scrutiny of all the materials which had been placed before the AO and the CIT (A) and observed as follows: - "7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. Assessee has filed sufficien....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of entries and source thereof emanating from books of accounts is duly explained by the assessee. In the entirety of facts and circumstances and keeping in view the guideline laid by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in various judgments including Dwarkadhish Investments; Gangeshwari Metals; and Oasis Hospitalities (supra) it is held that assessee has discharged its onus in terms of Sec 68. In view thereof we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A) in deleting the additions in respect of revenues second ground. The order of CIT (A) is upheld." 7. The AO appears to have given a short shrift to the obligation placed upon him once the identity of the party and the genuineness of the transaction was disclosed by the assessee. Lovely Exports....