2022 (7) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(A) deleting the protective addition of Rs.3,35,00,000/- on the issue of unaccounted investment and Rs.9,30,500/- on the issue of unaccounted commission u/s 69C of the Act and for A.Y.2012-13, the revenue is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the protective addition of Rs.6,88,00,000/- on the issue of unaccounted investment and of Rs.17,20,000/- on the issue of unaccounted commission u/s 69C of the Act. 4. Since the facts and law governing the lis for both assessment years are identical/similar, the result of the adjudication in respect of A.Y.2011-12 will decide the appeal of revenue for A.Y.2012-13. So, first the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y.2011-12 is taken up. 5. The brief facts of the case as noted by Ld. CIT(A) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....addition of Rs.9,37,500/- u/s 69C was also made being the unaccounted commission estimated @ 2.5% for obtaining the said accommodation entries." 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of AO making protective addition on it, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same by noting that the AO had made substantive addition in the hands of M/s. First Winner Textiles (India) P. Ltd., M/s. Bhagwat Textiles P. Ltd. & M/s. Starwood Exports P. Ltd. on account of accommodation entries received from concerns of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and has only resorted to protective addition in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note of the fact that the protective addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- made in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompany. 8. Coming to the case of M/s. Firstwinner Textile (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A) noted that vide order dated 03.11.2017 he has confirmed the substantive addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.14,00,00,000/- which included the addition related to the assessee of Rs.50 lakhs. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the AO while making the protective addition in the hands of the assessee made addition to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- whereas according to assessee it was only Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, the AO was directed to verify this issue and adopt the correct figure in respect of both companies. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order by taking note that since he has confirmed the substantive additions on the three entities (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Pvt. Ltd. and (iii) M/s. Starwood Exports Pvt. Ltd], have not preferred any appeal before this Tribunal till date against the addition substantively confirmed by Ld CIT(A) (supra). In the light of the aforesaid facts, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order by taking note that he has confirmed the substantive additions on the three entities (supra), so the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee has been deleted by him which action of the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference from our side because we note from the AO's report placed before us in respect of this appeal that these three entities in whose hands the substantive additions have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by his order dated 03.11.2017, ....