ITO WD-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEVINE DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD, DELHI

2 On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 2. Before us, the Ld. DR read out from relevant portions from the Ld. AO’s order and stated that before the Ld. AO, the assessee did not produce the necessary details in justification of the source of investment in said property. However, it is seen that in the impugned order, it is clearly recorded in para 5.3 that to obtain funds for the impugned investment, the assessee company sold its investments in as many as 9 companies to obtain Rs. 3 Crores for effecting the impugned transactions. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded in detail these factors in paras 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 regarding the details as would have been before the Ld. AO. It is further recorded in para 5.4 of the impugned order that the Ld. AO has mentioned about the source of funds being from investment in shares. The Ld. DR vehemently argued that it was not clear whether the details submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) were actually before the Ld. AO or not. He requested that this matter should be remanded back for examination by the Ld. AO. It is seen that the department has not take any specific ground regarding admission of fresh evidence or even denial of any opportunity to the Ld. AO. Thus, we deem it fit to uphold the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and record that the investment in property was done from fund obtained from sale of shares held by the assessee. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 20.03.2025 (George Mathan) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 20.03.2025 AK, P.S.

CIT(DR)