G.S.AUTO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

That the order of the Ld. CiT(A)-5 in sustaining addition amounting to Rs.4,14,59,500/- is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5 sustaining addition is against the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 Versus Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and various other judicial pronouncements which held that no additions can be made incompleted/unabated assessment U/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search/seizure operations. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-5 while sustaining the addition failed to appreciate that the appellant being a listed company with Bombay Stock Exchange has received the Warrant/Share Application Money in pursuance of a scheme as per the rules/regulations and guidelines of the SEBI and as per listing agreement with Stock Exchanges after recovering the approval from Bombay Stock Exchange and other statutory approvals. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-5 while sustaining the addition failed to appreciate that all the documents proving the identity and creditworthiness of the Investors and genuineness of the transactions as required U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 has been submitted before him and the appellant has adequately/ completely discharged the burden enjoined upon him U/s 68 of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A)-5 by deleting the addition of Rs. 193.50 Lacs out of Rs.244.92 Lacs received from G.J. Holding Pvt. Limited, a company under the same management, has admitted the identity and creditworthiness of the Investor and genuineness the transactions and hence sustaining the part addition of Rs. 51.42 Lacs from the same investor is contrary to the admitted position of law. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5 has grossly erred in law and on facts in heavily relying upon the statement of Sh. Satish Monga which was neither made during assessment/ appellate proceedings nor made before the Ld. A.0./CIT(A)-5and never confronted to the appellant and was made at the back of the appellant. Further, no opportunity for cross examination was provided to the appellant in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence inadmissible in law as held by various judicial pronouncements.

That the Ld. CIT(A)-5 while sustaining the addition failed to appreciate that the appellant being a company in which public are substantially interested1S not required to prove the source of source as per provisions of Sec. 68 of the Act. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5 while sustaining the addition on account of Warrant/Application Money received from Harwin Exports Pvt Limited amounting to Rs. 1.38 Crore failed to appreciate that same amount i.e. Rs. 1.38 Crore has already been added in the hands of Investor Company U/s 69 on account of investment made in the appellant company resulting in multiple addition both in the hands of Investor Company and Investee Company which is against the law and principles of natural justice. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5 while sustaining the addition on account of Warrant/Application Money received from Disha Commercial Pvt. Limited amounting to Rs. 80.37 Lacs and Pioneer Power Tower Limited amounting to Rs.143.90 Lacs failed to appreciate that same amount i.e. Rs. 80.37 Lacs and Rs.143.90 has already been added in the hands of Investors Company U/s 69 on account of investment made in the appellant company resulting in multiple addition both in the hands of Investors Company and Investee Company which is against the law and principles of natural justice. 10. That each ground of appeal is a separate ground and without prejudice to each other. 11. That the appellant craves permission to add/alter or to take fresh grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing.” 3. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal would show that the assessee, inter alia, vide Ground No.2 has pleaded that no additions in this case were warranted in an assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search action, the assessment being not abated/completed on the date of search action in the case of the assessee.