assessee'scasewas that, it had received certain advances from one MadhavVidharbh Estate Pvt. Ltd. for sale of its property. The sale, however, did not materialize since the assessee did not give NOC for transfer of property.
The same was later on cancelled and money was returned. Additionally, the assessee had furnished the copy of the sale agreement, copy of the cancellation of the agreement, copy of PAN number of the intending purchaser and copy of acknowledgement of return of income of the proposed purchaser. Incaseof such deposits the assessee had produced a copy of confirmation from the party, copy of the acknowledgement of the return of income and also PAN number of said entity. Such facts were not controverted by the revenue nor contended that the documents produced by the assessee were not genuine.
In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal correctly followed the decision of this Court incaseof CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava[2012J 208 Taxman 35121 taxmann.com 159. No question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed."
Therefore, we delete the addition of Rs. 17.46 crores as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) made u/s. 68 of the Act.
Sec. 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Cash Credit - No addition could be made where the amount received has been ultimately repaid. The addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 17.46 crs was made by the AO on the basis of two statements. One on the strength of the statement recorded by Investigation Wing during search conduced in the premises of Shri Anand Sharma on 2-7-2013 and second on the basis of the statement recorded by the AO of Shri Sushil Kumar Bhatter (director of M/s. NCPL). When the AO asked for explanation in respect of infusement of Rs. 17.46 crs; the assessee had explained about the JV agreement with M/s. NCPL for the project of setting up factory at Silvasa. The action of the AO was without conducting any inquiry about the veracity of the documents produced before him during assessment proceedings, the AO ought not to have brushed aside the documents to draw an adverse inference against the assessee only on the strength of statements which we will discuss infra. Thus, allowing the appeal of the assessee, ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 17.46 crores as confirmed by the CIT(A) made u/s. 68 of the Act. - MODERN MALLEABLES LIMITED V/s DEPUTY CIT - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 120 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
assessee'scasewas that, it had received certain advances from one MadhavVidharbh Estate Pvt. Ltd. for sale of its property. The sale, however, did not materialize since the assessee did not give NOC for transfer of property.
The same was later on cancelled and money was returned. Additionally, the assessee had furnished the copy of the sale agreement, copy of the cancellation of the agreement, copy of PAN number of the intending purchaser and copy of acknowledgement of return of income of the proposed purchaser. Incaseof such deposits the assessee had produced a copy of confirmation from the party, copy of the acknowledgement of the return of income and also PAN number of said entity. Such facts were not controverted by the revenue nor contended that the documents produced by the assessee were not genuine.
In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal correctly followed the decision of this Court incaseof CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava[2012J 208 Taxman 35121 taxmann.com 159. No question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed."
Therefore, we delete the addition of Rs. 17.46 crores as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) made u/s. 68 of the Act.
Sec. 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Cash Credit - No addition could be made where the amount received has been ultimately repaid. The addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 17.46 crs was made by the AO on the basis of two statements. One on the strength of the statement recorded by Investigation Wing during search conduced in the premises of Shri Anand Sharma on 2-7-2013 and second on the basis of the statement recorded by the AO of Shri Sushil Kumar Bhatter (director of M/s. NCPL). When the AO asked for explanation in respect of infusement of Rs. 17.46 crs; the assessee had explained about the JV agreement with M/s. NCPL for the project of setting up factory at Silvasa. The action of the AO was without conducting any inquiry about the veracity of the documents produced before him during assessment proceedings, the AO ought not to have brushed aside the documents to draw an adverse inference against the assessee only on the strength of statements which we will discuss infra. Thus, allowing the appeal of the assessee, ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 17.46 crores as confirmed by the CIT(A) made u/s. 68 of the Act. - MODERN MALLEABLES LIMITED V/s DEPUTY CIT - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 120 (ITAT-KOLKATA)