INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWANI vs. ASHTHA FINVEST LTD., BHIWANI

ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM:

This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [for short hereinafter referred to as the [“Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 09.08.2024 for Assessment

Year 2018-19.

- —A

ITA no.-4713/Del/2024 Ashtha Finvest Ltd. 2.0 The only issue arising in the present appeal is with reference to the relief accorded by learned first Appellate Authority appellate to the assessee in respect of addition of Rs.8,05,25,000/- made by the learned assessing officer u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit .The assessee had issued 80,52,500/- 7% compulsorily convertible non cumulative preference shares of 10 each. The Ld.

Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the identity and credit worthiness of shareholders as also genuineness of the transactions and hence proceeded to make the additions. None appeared on behalf of the appellant assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the learned assessing officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned, CIT(A) who passed his order dated 09.08.2024 which has been contested by the Revenue through the present appeal. The learned DR assailed the order of learned CIT(A) and argued in favour of the assessment order.

3.0 We have heard submissions of ld. DR in the light of material available on records. We have noted from para 6 on page 15 of the appellate order that during the course of appellate proceedings, the .^appellant assessee had filed an application under Rule 46A for Page 2 of 5

ITA no.-4713/Del/2024 Ashtha Finvest Ltd. submission of additional evidences. Consequently, the same was accepted and in all fairness the Ld. CIT (A) provided an opportunity to the Ld. AO, to file his comments. The Ld. AO submitted his comments vide his report dated 29.05.2024. The Ld. CIT (A) has extracted the impugned report from page 17 to 24 of his order. We have noted that in the impugned Remand report, the assessing officer had accepted submissions of the assessee and did not contest,the additions made by the predecessor assessing officer. For the purposes of clarity relevant part is reproduced as under ................................................ on analysis o f the reply filed by the assessee during “ the assessment proceedings, the assessment order and the additional evidences submitted before the Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the appellant has made satisfactory attempt to clarigy the picture the regarding source, credit worthiness and genuineness o f the transactions. It is also worth consideration that the FA U was not having the additional evidence such as source o f source, assessment order, appeal related documents o f the share holding companies.

Some o f the remarks made by the FA U appear to be partially incorrect. Therefore, it is conclusively submitted that the appeal o f the f — Page 3 of 5

ITA no.-4713/Del/2024 Ashtha Finvest Ltd. assessee deserves to be decided in the light o f the additional evidences subm itted during appellate proceedings ................

4.0 Thus, it has been seen that in the Remand report the Ld. AO has accepted the fact that no addition was actually called for. The relief has been accorded by the Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance upon the Remand report as well as his own analysis of the matter. The case of the Revenue therefore fails as the relief is a squarely resting upon a Remand report. Of the assessing officer. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that no case is made out of any interference in the order of the learned CIT appeal at this stage. We therefore confirm the order of learned CIT appeal and dismiss all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.