2022 (6) TMI 888

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eleting the addition of Rs.40,00,000/- related to M/s. Justify Vanijya (P) Ltd. & addition of Rs.2,40,00,000/- related to M/s. Sadbhavna Properties (P) Ltd. made by AO on account of 'Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of the Act' by the assessee for the year under consideration." 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in business of purchase, lease or otherwise acquire land, building to develop and dispose or maintain the same. The Assessing Officer (AO) has taken up the case by prefacing the assessment order that in connection with the search and seizure operation in the case of Amrapali Group on 07.08.2013, the case of the assessee is centralized to his jurisdiction. 4. In the assessment order, the AO observed that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been received. Placing reliance on several case laws, AO concluded as under :- "4.7 From the above discussions, the following facts become clear : (i) The investors were not found to be existent. (ii) During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to produce the main directors/ controlling persons with supportive documentary evidence such as books of account, bank statements to prove the identify, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. However, the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it. (iii) The aforementioned case laws squarely applies to the assessee's case. 4.8 Therefore, the assessee company has failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity of the share applicants, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ature of the AO was there. He observed that observations of the AO is false and reply from four parties has been duly received by the AO much before the passing of the assessment order. He also found fault with the AO's observation that preliminary enquiries were conducted. He observed that assessee was not confronted with the results of alleged preliminary enquiries. He observed that all the informations were given to the AO and AO does not make further enquires so adverse inference cannot be taken against the assessee. He found that assessee has discharged its onus and he found no justification in the addition. 6. Against this order, Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. We have heard the ld. DR for the Revenue. None is appearing on ....