2022 (9) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the ITAT has erred in law in admitting fresh evidence by overlooking the provisions laid down under Rule 46A since the assessee had not explained any cause which prevented it from producing evidence before the Assesing Officer. 3. He states that the ITAT has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained share capital and share premium overlooking the fact that the assesse company had failed to explain the reasons for high share premium /capital which was not commensurate with the assets owned by the assessee company. 4. He further states that the ITAT has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.27,88,000/- on account of unsecured loans without considering that the assessee company failed to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate Authorities below deleted the said addition on the ground that addition under Section 68 of the Act cannot be made because the said amount was being carried forward from earlier years, which is evident from letter dated 04th March, 2015 filed before the Assessing Officer and there had been no increase in paid up share capital and that this fact was not controverted by the Assessing Officer. 8. With respect to the addition of Rs.27,88,000/- on account of unsecured loans, both the Appellate Authorities below have held that the amount of Rs.25 lacs pertained to the earlier assessment year and was appearing as unsecured loan in the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2011. It was recorded that most of the unsecured loan were in fact paid repai....