TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences, i.e. bank statement of Shri. Hemant Patel and sale of agricultural land, without according the -opportunity to the A.O. thereby violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred holding that the bank account of lender second layer was called u/s 133(6) of the Act by the A.O., which is not part of the assessment record. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 87,54,000/- .being payment made for technology transfer without considering the fact that there was no / agreement for such technology transfer nor any material on record placed by the assessee that the technology claimed to have been received on transfer was any special/specific/patented/copyrighted technology within the exclusive knowledge of the transferor. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 87,54,000/-without appreciating the finding of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order especially that without having any machinery on hand, technology transfer was paid and technology has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On the other hand the A.O. had failed to verify the entries and had relied on summary of date wise details furnished by the appellant in response to show cause notice. It is evident that he had failed to verify the details brought on record by the assessee and had added the amount mechanically. It is not proper for A.O. to nurture any doubt about the veracity of these documents, unless he has some cogent reasons and material. He has failed to bring on record any such material to negate the explanation of the assessee. Therefore, this ground of appeal is granted in favour of the assessee and addition of Rs. 1,31,26,457/- is deleted." ".......5.3.4 In light of above arguments, it can be said that there are merits in the arguments put up by the A.O. in rejecting the claim of capital expenditure. It is also observed that the appellant had equally put forth the valid arguments to substantiate it's claim. The A.O. had mentioned that he is not satisfied with the documents put forth before him and appellant had argued that facts override the documents. On taking the balanced view, I am of the opinion that arguments put forth by the appellant has more force than the arguments of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to the assessee-company out of his personal savings, agriculture loans and unsecured loans taken from different parties. Shri Luv Patel had given loan out of FD maturity, LIC maturity and agriculture loan. Shri Kush Patel has given loan out of LIC loan, FDR maturity and agriculture loan. Out of the above loan transactions an amount of Rs. 2,64,24,543/- taken from Dhaval Patel and Kush Patel, their sources were being properly explained before the AO. The assessee had also furnished bank statements of Dhaval Patel and also given detailed explanation for each and every transaction that has taken place. However, the AO has not made any further inquiry in respect of these transactions. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,31,26,457/-. Further ld.counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention towards section 68 of the Act and new proviso introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2013. This provision is made in relation to share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, whereas in the assessee's case it is an unsecured loan obtained by the assessee for its business purposes. Thus, the ld.AO erred in applying new proviso for u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has an obligation to discharge the burden of proving that these were genuine incomes has been considered by this court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). This court was concerned there with the encashment of high denomination notes. In that case, some unexplained high denomination notes were treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. This court held that when a court of fact arrives at its decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or acts on material, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, and it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its decision, a question of law arises, whether the finding of the court is not vitiated by reason of its having relied upon conjectures, surmises and suspicions not supported by any evidence on record or partly upon evidence and partly upon inadmissible material. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises, nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspi....