2023 (7) TMI 1202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- made by the learned Assessing Offer u/s 68 of Income Tax Act in violation of the established rule of evidence and the principle of natural justice and therefore said addition is liable to be deleted. 1.1 The learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crore only) made by the learned Assessing Offer u/s 68 of Income Tax Act without providing to the assessee a copy of purported statement given by 'another assessee' against the assessee before the Investigating Wing of the Income Tax Department during the course of survey on the said 'another assessee' and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine and confront the said 'another assessee/p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee 4. Ground No.4: The learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in confirming decision of the learned AO to impose penal interest u/s 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, and to initiate penalty proceedings U/s 271(1) (c) of Income Tax, Act, which are not applicable in the case of assessee. 5. Ground No.5: Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. The relevant documentary evidences brought on record duly considered in the light of rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring Nil income. The return was selected for scrutiny as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upon the statement of Himanshu Verma and made the addition of Rs. 3 crores. 9. Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 10. U/s. 68 the assessee is required to establish (a) identity (b) Genuineness of the transaction (c) Capacity of the lender /depositor 11. The initial burden is on the assessee. We find that to discharge the initial burden the assessee has submitted copies of ITR, bank statements, confirmations and affidavits acknowledging receipt of share certificates from the 10 investors companies. 12. We find that the AO has failed to probe / conduct scrutiny of the documents so furnished and could not point out any fault in the documentary evidences so furnished. 13. No material was brought on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee to make any enquiry as he pleased to do. 17. Considering the facts in totality we are of the considered view that the assessee has successfully discharged the onus cast upon it by the provisions of section 68 of the Act and the AO has grossly failed in discharging the burden which shifted upon him. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the impugned addition and the same is directed to be deleted. 18. Ground No.1 with its sub grounds is allowed. 19. Ground No.2 is not pressed and the same is dismissed as not pressed. 20. Ground No.3 relates to the addition of Rs. 12.80 lacs made by the AO as deemed profit computed @ 8% of Rs. 1.60 crores received as gross revenue from finishing work. 21. While scrutinising the return of income the ....