TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to as the 'Act'). The Revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: "i. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made as un-explained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- ignoring the provision of sec. 68 of the IT Act where it is clarified that any explanation offered by the assessee company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless such explanation in the opinion of the A.O has been found to be satisfactory. iii) The appellant craves the leave to make any add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the evidences and explanation submitted by the assessee observed that the assessee was a genuine company carrying on share business and business of granting loan advances and complying to statutory formalities in accordance with the Companies Act and guidelines of RBI. All the share applicants were group companies of the assessee. The shareholders had filed all the details that the Assessing Officer required in the notice. The audited accounts were filed of the shareholders, wherein, they had sufficient capital and asset based investment made in the assessee company. That....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business and business of granting loans and advances and complying to statutory formalities in accordance to the companies Act and the guidelines of RBI. The appellant have issued shares and the share applicants were all group companies. The shareholders replied to the notices issued and served upon them us I33(6) and they filed all the details that the assessing officer required in the notice The audited accounts were filed of the shareholders wherein they were having sufficient capital, net worth, and asset base for investments made in the appellant company. The shareholders also filed their share application form, allotment letters, bank statement to prove the genuineness of the investment and source. The investments were made by account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the share applicants. Accordingly all the three conditions as required under s. 68 of the Act i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was placed before the AO and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO Is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, no addil1on was warranted under s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, the additions made by the AO of Rs.3,00,00,000/- /s 68 of the Act stands deleted." 5. Before us, the ld. DR could not point out any defect or infirmity in the above order of the CIT(A) which may justify our interference. Even the ld. DR has been fair enough....