AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in real estate business and filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 1,16,71,191/-. In the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, the A.O. inter alia made addition of Rs. 4.90 Crores by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act in respect of share capital and also made addition of Rs. 57.95 Lakhs under section 68 of the Act in respect of trade advances. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), after taking note of the written submissions and underlying evidences, reversed both the actions of the A.O. in question. 4.1 The relevant operative paragraph of the order of CIT(A) in respect of addition of Rs. 4.90 cores under section 68 reads as under :- "2.3 I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the assessment order. As seen above Shri Subodh Singhania, Director of the assessee company has in its statement u/s 133A dated 24.02.2012 stated that the amount of Rs. 12.65 crores was his own money which was introduced in M/s Singhania Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. as share capital through some other companies. On para-3 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of refund as unexplained cash credit. In coming to this conclusion the AO has noted that details of lands were not furnished, making of refund for payment of all amounts through a single person Shri Sita Ram Agrawal was not explained and names and addresses given in the confirmation are not the same as appearing in the data of the Department. Appellant has submitted that firstly the AO has called for the cash book which was furnished along with reply dated 08.07.2014. Then after a lapse of seven months, the AO called for account copies of persons to whom cash was returned. Appellant has, going one step ahead, instead of account copies, furnished confirmations from the persons. It was further submitted that in the cash book due to clerical mistake of copy paste, name of Shri Sita Ram Agrawal was mentioned as the person through whom all the advances were refunded. This was not the fact and this typographical error was corrected in the confirmations of respective persons. Comments of the AO were called for vide this office letter dated 20.01.2016. AO has commented that the assessee has furnished copies just four days prior to the tie barring date. There was mismatch of P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt of share application/capital from three companies namely Royal Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Oxford Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and Lotus Vintrade Pvt. Ltd aggregating to Rs. 12.65 Crores without the presence of any incriminating material. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee and as emanates from the case records, a survey operation under section 133(A) of the Act 1961 was carried out on 13.02.2012 in the business premises of the assessee. In the course of survey proceedings, the statement of Managing Director of the assessee company Shri Subodh Singhania was recorded. During the survey operations, the survey team conducted enquiry into the genuineness of the receipt of share capital by the assessee Company amounting to Rs. 7.75 Crores in A.Y. 2011-12 and 4.90 crores in A.Y. 2012-13 in question. The statement of Managing Director of the assessee company Shri Subodh Singhania was recorded in the matter. As claimed, Shri Singhania, with a view to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind and channelize energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the Income Tax Department, offered to surrender a sum of Rs. 7.75 crores in A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 4.90 crores i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) cannot be faulted. 11. On perusal of the order of CIT(A) it is noticed that Shri Singhania in his statement during the survey proceedings has explained the fact of introducing his money declared in the assessee Company as capital through some other Companies. On perusal of the statement, a clear averment to the effect is observed that the aggregate sum of Rs. 12.65 Crores has been routed through three Companies in the assessee Company. It is further observed that the A.O. has not carried out any query to displace such averment. In this backdrop, the CIT(A) rightly observed that once the disclosure has been accepted in the hands of the Promoter/Managing Director, the same disclosure cannot be assessed again in the hands of the assessee Company and that too without any enquiry. The CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. for taking a favourable view. 12. We find merit in the plea of the Assessee that charging tax on the disclosure made in the individual capacity and bringing the same amount to tax yet again in the hands of the assessee Company would clearly amount to double taxation. Secondly, the assessment o....