TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s order dated 24.03.2006. 2. We find that the assessee had raised some additional grounds before us which were withdrawn by it vide letter dated 30.6.2016. Hence, the same are not admitted for adjudication. 3. The first regular ground raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 4. The first issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the ld CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition made u/s 68 of the Act in the sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. There was a search u/s 132 of the Act carried out in UIC group of cases on 7.5.2002. As a conse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dra (A/c No. 4886) to the bank account of the assessee towards sale of shares to the tune of Rs. 2,65,30,000/- is not the assessee's actual income because the ultimate beneficiary is finally the UIC group. This was observed in Para 26 of the said block assessment order by the ld AO. The ld AO further observed that the entire purpose and rigmarole of share sale and purchase by the two to three layers of share transactions undertaken by the companies controlled by Mr. S. Singhi and Mr. Rajesh Jajodia is a clear, covert and conniving operation to channelize the UIC group's own unaccounted money back to itself through this maze of cash deposits and share transactions when there were no actual share transactions but only accommodating book entri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deposit Amount of cash deposit (Rs.) Date of transfer to assessee's bank a/c. Amount (Rs.) CA 4934 Shankarlal Gudh & Babulal Baid 17.04.02 03.05.02 06.05.02 4,50,000/- 4,99,000/- 4,40,000/- 18.04.02 03.05.02 06.05.02 4,50,000/- 5,00,000/- 4,00,000/- 13,50,000/- CA 4886 Rajendra Kumar Surana 19.04.02 20.04.02 22.04.02 06.05.02 3,00,000/- 3,01,000/- 4,50,000/- 4,60,000/- 19.04.02 22.04.02 07.05.02 3,00,000/- 7,50,000/- 3,50,000/- 14,00,000/- CA 4933 Surendra Kumar Hirawat 17.04.02 04.05.02 06.05.02 07.05.02 4,50,000/- 5,01,000/- 1,50,000/- 1,60,000/- 18.04.02 19.04.02 06.05.02 07.05.02 3,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 5,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 10,50,000/- 4.3. Since the sources of such cash deposits and creditworthiness of the persons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for fastening any liability on them". 4.4. The ld AO observed that since proceedings u/s 158BD of the Act have already been initiated in the name of the assessee and all the above deposits were within 7.5.2002 i.e the period covered under such proceedings , the above amount of Rs. 38,00,000/- was added on protective basis as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the regular assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 24.3.2006. 4.5. Before the ld CITA , it was argued that it is an accepted position that the amount of Rs. 38,00,000/- was received by the assessee through account payee cheques against sale of investments. The said investment was duly disclosed in the books of accounts. The assessee had duly computed ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been proved. The ld CITA however not convinced with the arguments of the assessee confirmed the addition made by the ld AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground no. 2:- "2(a). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of the sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by considering the receipt of the said amount as unexplained in spite of there being ample evidences about the genuineness of the said receipt of money by the appellant by way of sale of shares. 2(b).Without any prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of the sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- separately u/s 68 of the Act, neglecting to take i....