TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions made by the Id. Ao without providing the sufficient opportunity of being heard in gross violation of principle of natural justice. In view of the facts and circumstance, the same liable to be quashed. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 2,40,25,000/-on account of capital introduced by partner M/s Quick Developers & Fiscal Services Limited u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,40,25,000/-without correct a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees of the group companies. Further, the appellant respectfully submits before your honour that Mrs Bharati Parab, Senior Accountant was busy in compiling data and co- ordinating with auditors for statutory audit and tax audit compliances of group companies as deadline for the same was 31/10/2024 hence she failed to track the notices. Thus, no submissions have been made in instant case. The appellant was in bonafide faith and under impression that Notices were complied from ting to time The Appellate Order has been passed on 14/10/2024 but it is come to the knowledge of the appellant on 29/03/2025 when status of outstanding demand of Income tax of all companies had been asked by directors. Hence, the appellant has come to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... MST. Katiji & Ors. 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) wherein, it has been held that when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay and in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view, the principles of advancing substantial justice are of prime importance. Hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee, which is duly supported by an affidavit wherein, the assessee is justifiable and properly explained the delay in filing the present appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal, consequently, the delay is condoned and appeal is registered to be heard on merits. 7. The only effective ground raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ank account. 11. We further noticed that initially the said amount was transferred by M/s. Quick Developers to M/s. Ashtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2012 for share application money, therefore, in the current year, the refund of the said amount to M/s. Quick Developers by way of capital introduction in assessee‟s firm cannot be doubted or questioned. In order to substantiate its stand, the assessee had filed the following documents:- a) Audited financial of Quick Developers & Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd for AY 2017-18 (Pg no. 40-47) b) by Quick Developers & Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd Company status from ROC site (Page no. 48-49) c) Assessee's Bank statement of Union Bank (Page no. 50-51) d) L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue in the case of M/s. Quick Develop in the case of M/s. Ashtech (India) Pvt. Ltd., 14. After having gone through the fact of the present case we found that the amount received by the assessee has already been duly reflected in the books of account maintained by the concerned partners and they had also confirmed such contribution. Therefore, addition u/s. 68 made on the basis of suspicion is not maintainable. On this proposition we rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959) 37 ITR 271 wherein, it was held that suspicion however strong may be cannot take the place of evidence. For this view was reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble S....