2026 (3) TMI 1342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Kumar CA And Shri J P Sharma, Adv. For the Revenue : Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2019, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. CIT(A)), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 and also sec. 68 is not applicable as amount not recd. in impugned A.Y. 1997-98. 2. The impugned asstt. is barred by limitation. 3. That under the facts and circumstances no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing has been allowed. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that there is delay in filing of appeal. Considering the explanation of the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not valid. 5. Per Contra, ld. CIT-DR submitted that under section 68, it is statutory requirement to consider unexplained funds in the year in which it is credited in the books of accounts. Therefore, addition under section 68 is valid. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the case has a history of travelling from AO till ITAT fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntiated by any cogent evidence such as balance sheets of the investors companies. We therefore are of thew view that the assessee has not been able to explain, the source of funds and failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and therefore, the addition made under section 68 of the Act by the AO is valid. 8. The only defence furnished by the assessee ....