AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent/assessee, has pointed out that the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay in re-filing is, prima facie, inaccurate. 3.1 It is contended that the reason trotted out for seeking condonation of delay in re-filing is that the appellant/revenue had to re-type certain documents. Mr Jolly points out that none of the documents that have been placed before the court are re-typed. 3.2 Furthermore, Mr Jolly says that contrary to what has been stated in the application, no administrative approval was required for seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 4. Clearly, the reasons furnished do not align with the record. However, having regard to the fact that the delay is in re-filing, we are inclined to condone the delay, as we wish to deal with the appeal on merits. 5. Consequently, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned. 6. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 503/2023 7. This is an appeal concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 8. The record shows that the Assessing Officer (AO), while framing the assessment order dated 10.07.2015 under Section 143(3) read with Section 153 and 153B of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... added to its income, having regard to the fact that the respondent/assessee had failed to demonstrate the creditworthiness of the source of source. 12. In this case, the source of source was a person going by the name Mr Joseph Thomas, a resident of the United Arab Emirates [UAE]. 13. In sum, Mr Menon contended that the transaction concerning investment made by BBHL was not genuine. Insofar as the other addition qua travelling expenses was concerned, Mr Menon once again relied upon the assessment order. 13.1 In support of his submission that the expenses incurred for or on behalf of the directors of the company were personal, it was submitted that no material has been placed on record by the respondent/assessee to demonstrate that the expenses incurred on hotels and hiring of vehicles had any nexus with the business of the respondent/assessee. 14. On the other hand, Mr Jolly drew our attention to the order passed by the CIT(A) concerning both additions. Based on the findings of fact returned by the CIT(A), which were accepted by the Tribunal, Mr Jolly says that no case for interference was made out. 14.1 According to Mr Jolly, this was not a case where a substantial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mauritius Revenue Authority had also forwarded the bank statement of BBHL maintained with AFR Asia Bank for the period spread between 05.05.2012 and June 2012. This statement demonstrated that Rs. 40,00,060/- had been transferred to India for investing in the respondent/assessee. (xi) The amount invested by BBHL was received in the respondent/assessee's account maintained with the Lajpat Nagar Branch of Axis Bank. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO regarding share application money and premium amounting to Rs. 16,55,47,646/-. 17. Mr Menon's contention that the triple test evolved by Courts for making additions under Section 68 of the Act is not satisfied, is untenable. 17.1 For the reasons set forth hereafter, the identity of the investor, which is BBHL, is not in dispute. As a matter of fact, the source of source was also identified, which in this case, is one Mr Joseph Thomas, a permanent resident of UAE. The creditworthiness of the investor, i.e., BBHL, is demonstrated by the fact that the amount invested in India was sourced from a personal loan given by Mr Joseph Thomas. BBHL is an i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to be shown. 21. The onus, if at all, at this stage, in our view, shifted to the appellant/revenue. The appellant/revenue has not alluded to any material that would even faintly disclose that this was a case of round-tripping. 21.1 Therefore, the deletion ordered by the CIT(A) which was confirmed by the Tribunal, was, in our view, the correct call, in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case. 22. This brings us to the other aspect, i.e., disallowance of 70% of the expenses incurred by the respondent/assessee for arranging hotel accommodation, air passage and vehicles for its directors. The record shows that the directors of the respondent/assessee had travelled to Goa, Mumbai, Bangalore, Zurich, and Kuala Lumpur. As noted by the CIT(A), the AO, without examining the material, concluded that the expenses incurred were personal in nature and thus, proceeded to disallow 70% of Rs. 11,86,783/- (expenses incurred by the respondent/assessee), which was a figure amounting to Rs. 8,30,748. 23. Notably, the CIT(A) records in his order, that he examined the invoices and other material and thereafter concluded, that the expenses claimed by the respondent/assessee inde....