2024 (8) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering an amount of Rs. 11,59,30,375/- as the opening balance and allowing the same. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that Rs. 11,59,30,375/- was the opening balance and addition cannot be made in the current AY 2015-16 (year under appeal). " 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 26 days in filing the appeal by the revenue for which petition for condonation of delay has been filed stating that the delay is due to heavy workload associated with time barring scrutiny assessment proceedings coupled with acute shortage of manpower. Also since there was Annual General Transfers (AGT) in the department, the officers and officials got transferred from this office w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny to the extent of Rs. 12,56,83,162 outstanding as on 01.04.2013. On verification of the bank statement of Sri B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, the AO noted that the closing balance as on 31.03.2013 is Rs. 12,56,83,162 and on verification of bank transaction prior to 31.03.2013 in case of B. Ravi Kumar Reddy the closing balance and the amount lent to the assessee company does not tally. The bank transactions show the amount lent at Rs. 6,34,89,550 upto 31.03.2013 whereas the closing balance of B. Ravi Kumar Reddy in the books of assessee is Rs. 12,56,83,162 which shows a deficit of Rs. 6,21,23,612. After examining the submissions of the assessee the AO made addition of Rs. 11,59,30,375 u/s. 68. 6. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n that the amount of Rs. 11,59,30,375/- was the opening balance and addition cannot be made in the current AY 2015-16(year under appeal). In view of the facts of the case, appeal on ground Nos. 4 to 13 are allowed. Ground No. 3 is dismissed as the appellant has not filed any evidence substantiating the claim that the order was dispatched after the limitation period." 7. Aggrieved from the order of the CIT(Appeals), both the revenue and assessee by way of CO are in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and submitted that in the previous AY, the transactions recorded in the directors loan account is not reflected in the bank statement and assessee has not substantiated the same. The CIT(A) has merely stated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. M/s. Maharaja Shopping Complex Vs. DCIT No.832/2008 dated 14.10.2014. (HC-Kar) 44-50 8. CIT Vs. BJN Hotels Limited (2017) 79 taxmann.com 336 (Karnataka) 51-53 9. M/s. Globe Transport Corporation Vs. ACIT in ITA No.629 to 63I/Bang/2014 and connected matters dated 04/01/2019 54-63 10. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the AO has made addition for director's loan ledger account of Sri B. Ravi Kumar Reddy appearing in books of account of assessee company of Rs. 11,59,30,375 u/s 68 on the reason that the transactions are not matching with previous year's financial statements. In this regard, the assessee stated that the transactions did not pertain to this assessment year and it relates to previous assessment year. We ....