TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of ten days on the part of the Revenue in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any objection in this regard. We, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the Revenue on merit. 3. Grounds No. 1 to 3 of the Revenue's appeal involve a common issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration by treating the same as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 68 to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 07.03.2015. 5. The addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 by treating the share capital and share premium amount as unexplained cash credit was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the following submission, inter alia, was made on behalf of the assessee in support of its case that there being no cash or cheque payment received against the issue of share capital with premium, section 68 had no application:- "3.1. The Appellant Company most humbly and respectfully submits that the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on verification that there was no payment received by the assessee company against the issue of share capital along with premium by cash or through banking channel. Keeping in view this finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer in the remand report and the ratio of the judicial pronouncements cited on behalf of the assessee-company including the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Co. -vs.- CIT [206 ITR 718], the ld. CIT(Appeals) held that section 68 had no application when the shares were allotted by the assessee-company under a barter system. He accordingly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68. 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is however observed that the facts involved in the case of V.I.S.P. (P) Ltd. were different in as much as the liability in question in the said case represented trading liability of the assessee accruing as a result of purchases made by the assessee during the relevant year and since the said liability was found to be a bogus liability, addition made by the AO was held to be sustainable by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. 7. In the case of Panna S. Khatau (supra) cited by the learned DR, both section 68 and 56 (2)(vi) were held to be applicable by the Tribunal but no concrete or cogent reasons were given to justify the applicability of section 68 to the credits not involving any receipt or inflow of cash in the relevant year. More....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve cash nor did pay any cash, there was no real credit of cash in the cash book and the question of inclusion of the amount of the entry as unexplained cash credit could not arise. In our opinion, the ratio of this decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Co. (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case and the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 by holding that the said provision was not applicable. 8. As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to the case of M/s. Bhagwat Marom Pvt. Limited, we respectfully follow the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f of the assessee-company was forwarded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer for verification. In the remand report submitted to the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Assessing Officer accepted on verification that the amount in question was actually paid by the assessee-company to DVC towards electricity bills. The ld. CIT(Appeals) accordingly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue. 12. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the provision made by the assessee for power charges payable to DVC was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said provision did not represent actual liability of the ....