Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1169 - AT - Income TaxShare application money treated as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 - whether the assessee has discharged its onus in terms of requirements of section 68 in respect of each of the persons, who have alleged to have paid money to the assessee company - Held that:- On perusal of the documents and observations mentioned above in respect of the 29 persons, we find that in support of the identity of these persons, the assessee has submitted copy of either ration card or voter identity card or driving licence etc and out of 29 persons, 19 persons were produced before the Assessing Officer also, thus, the identity of those persons cannot be doubted. However, in support of creditworthiness, the assessee has submitted copy of proof of agriculture land holding in case of only six persons, namely, Shree Vijay Veer Singh, Sh Yograj Singh, Sh Mahipal Singh, Sh Harpal Singh, Sh Ram Prasad Singh, and Sh. Khoob Singh. Only one person, Sh Krisna Kumar filed copy of PAN card. Though in the statements, it is claimed by Sh. Vijay Veer Singh, Sh Karmapal Singh, Sh Krishnapal Gehlot, Sh Karma Veer Singh etc. that money was invested out of sale of crops, but no evidence in support of sale of crops was filed before either the lower authorities or before us. In case of Sh. Nanu Singh, the copy of ration card available on page 16 of the paper book, shows annual income of the family at ₹ 2000 only and which in our opinion is not sufficient to explain the investment of ₹ 30,000/-by him. Similarly, Sh Harpal Singh has shown investment of ₹ 35000/- in share application money, whereas in the Ration card of Sh. Harpal Singh, annul income of ₹ 9500 has been shown, which is not sufficient to explain his investment . Sh. Deepak Kumar made investment of ₹ 2.5 lakh in the share application money and stated that said investment was out of reward of ₹ 3 lakh from custom and Central excise Department. In support of the creditworthiness of Sh. Deepak Kumar, the assessee has submitted a certificate from office of the customs and Central excise, which is available on page 110 of the assesses paper book. On perusal of the certificate we find that name of Sh Deepak Kumar, is not appearing in the said certificate. No other evidence like copy of return of income etc was filed supporting the receipt of such income in the hand of Sh. Deepak Kumar. The facts and circumstances of the case, we conclude that the impugned transactions accepting share application money by the company do not appear to be genuine transactions. Mere filing of copy of share certificates in the name of persons, cannot lead to genuineness of the transaction - Decided against assessee
|