M/S ADITI SCANS PVT. LTD,BIJAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, BIJAPUR
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 38/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am M/S Aditi Scans Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-1, Bijapur Shiva Kunja Chalukya Nagar (East) Solapur Road, Vijaypur, Vijaypur Pan No.Aagca 7255 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prasanth G.S., Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Prabhat Jha, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Gulbarga, Dated 29.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009- 2010, On The Following Grounds :- The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In So Far As It Is Against The 1. Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Loss 2. Of Rs. 15,76,829/- As Against The Lossof Rs.75,46,930/- Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Authorities Below Erred In Treating The Share Capital Of Rs. 3. 13,75,000/- As Unexplained Money Under Section 68 Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Bad In Law As The Amount 4. Of Rs. 13,75,000/- Cannot Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant As The Mandatory Conditions To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.
For Appellant: Shri Prasanth G.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Jha, CITDR
Section 263Section 68
1. appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case.
The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total loss
2. of Rs. 15,76,829/- as against the lossof Rs.75,46,930/- under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authorities below erred in treating
