2025 (7) TMI 240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,07,09,348/- made by the Assessing Officer since the evidences available during assessment proceedings, on the face of it, establishes that the transactions leading to investment in the Assessee company are not genuine. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse." 3. "The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs. 83,43,730/-. The case was taken up under scrutiny, sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he investments are not provided to the Department and submitted that the Assessee has failed to discharge the onus conferred u/s 68 of the Act, however, the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously deleted the addition. Thus sought for allowing the Appeal. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the additions have been made by the A.O. in respect of three shareholders, wherein the Assessee had discharged its onus cast upon it under Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating all the documents which are on record, deleted the addition which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Thus sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.....