TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e department and in support of this a condonation petition has been filed explaining the delay. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities, which took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,88,00,000/- as made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3.1. The facts in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he addition by observing and holding as under:- "GROUND NO.-(iii):This ground of the Appellant is directly linked with the merits of the case, wherein it was urged that addition of Rs. 4,88,00,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer by wrongly treating outstanding receivables as investments made during the year without source, that too as an unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, despite recording the said transactions in books of account, and thus addition is improper and Bad-in-Law. Before arriving at the conclusion, it is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of Sec. 69A of the Act, which is the basis for making the impugned addition: Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cheques deposited for clearance through banks. In other words all the transactions were routed through banking channel. The case of the Appellant company was that investments were made in the preceding financial year and the same were utilised by redeeming the maturity amount and thus there is sufficient source for making the investments. The explanation of the Appellant was not refuted by the Assessing Officer and it appears that explanations were not taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer; on the contrary the Assessing Officer appears to have laid much stress on the fact that trade on NSEL platform was terminated and therefore the investments to the extent of amount recoverable through NSEL platform needs to be treated as unexp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue of bona-fides of activity through NSEL and source of the investment, more particularly invoking the provisions of Sec. 69A of the Act overlooking the fact that transaction was routed through books of account and the expression 'CAS PRES CHQ' indicates that it was only a bank transaction and the letter addressed by NSEL dt.30.09.2021 shows that Appellant is a bona-fide investor and efforts were made by NSEL to recover the amount and thus the Assessing Officer had committed an error in making an addition arbitrarily on the premise that there was no source for investment as well as doubting the bona-fides of the investment and at the same time invoking provisions of Sec. 69A of the Act. Having regard to the detailed factual m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has recorded a finding of facts that the addition is made by the ld. AO by treating the outstanding receivables in respect of earlier years as investment during the year without any source. The ld. CIT(A) recorded the finding that there is no scope for application of provision of Section 69A of the Act as the transactions were made in the earlier assessment years, whereas the provisions of Section 69A of the Act are applicable to only those transactions which are not recorded in the books of accounts, whereas the assessee has duly recorded these transactions in the books of account. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that the ld. AO has wrong....