TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 99,14,000/- made by A.O. on account of share capital as unexplained credit." The assessee has also filed a cross objection on the following grounds: 1. That the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 04.12.2012 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad on facts and in law. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the disallowance of advances written off of Rs. 9,04,426/- made by the Ld. Assessing officer despite of the fact that the advances were given in ordinary course of business and the same is allowable either as trading loss under section 28 of the Act, or as a normal business l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oitelny Zavod, 17 Street Kurgan-640631 Mashinostroitelny 99 990 Total 9,91,400 99,14,000 The Assessing Officer examined the details and noticed that the details neither prove the creditworthiness of the investors nor the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer doubted the creditworthiness of the investors and noted that complete details of the investors have not been filed by the assessee. He also noted that all funds have been invested by the foreign companies/entities. Therefore, for want of incomplete details, the AO treated it as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee. 3. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has written off advances to the extent of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at primary conditions for an amount written off to be allowed as expense is that it should have been shown as an income in the relevant Financial Year or earlier financial year. He, therefore, observed that it was an advance as admitted by the assessee himself. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, the assessee made detailed written submissions before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee and relying on assessee's own case in ITA No. 4932, 4933. 5390 and 5391/Del./2011, of coordinate Bench, allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect of addition made u/s. 68 of Rs. 99,14,000/-. He however, sustained the addition of Rs. 9,04,426/- a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee through banking channels as is evident from F1RC, which also mentions the purpose of remittance and also the particulars of the remitting bank. FIPB approval that too with a liberty to collect share capital up to 600 crores and ROC compliance etc. clearly indicate the stand of the assessee. In our considered view, the plethora of the evidence filed by the assessee amounts to discharge of primary burden cast on the assessee in terms of sec.68 of the I.T. Act for identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transaction." And "Taking into consideration of all the above, we find merit in the argument of the Id. Counsel for the assessee that the primary burden cast on the assessee was duly discharged. The i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upported by necessary evidence. On the other hand, there is no evidence with the revenue to indicate that the share capital subscribed / loans raised is not genuine. Even in the search and seizure conducted on the appellant, no such evidence could be unearthed. In view of the above, and in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case cited above, the addition of share capital of Rs. 99,14,000/- as unexplained credits is not legally sustainable and is deleted." The decision of ITAT has further been confirmed by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA Nos. 547, 549 and 555/2013 dated 15.12.2016. There being no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, and for want of any contrary material on record, we h....