Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 147 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 on account of bogus share capital and share premium - receipt of certain information from DIT(Investigation)-II, Mumbai that the assessee indulged in certain bogus transactions with hawala entities - HELD THAT:- The assessee had filed plethora of documents as mentioned in para 3.2 to prove the identity of the investor, creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transactions. All the four entities were corporate entities and filing their respective return of income under unique Permanent Account Number. The financial statements, Annual Reports as well as bank statements of the all the investors was made available to Ld. AO. Nothing on record suggest that any cash was exchanged / transacted between the assessee and the investor entities. The perusal of bank statements of all the four entities, as placed on record, reveal that there is no immediate cash deposit in the respective bank accounts which has later been transmitted to the assessee in the shape of Share Application Money. The investments were duly reflected in the financial statements of the investor companies. The factum of investment was confirmed by all the four entities. The three parties responded to notice u/s 133(6) and confirmed the transactions whereas new address was provided with respect to the fourth entity. However, no further inquiry has been made by AO so as to confirm the transactions. The Ld. DR has relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] which we have carefully studied. However, the factual matrix, before us, in the present case is quite different. In the present case, we find that the assessee has duly discharged the initial onus of proving the identity of the investors, creditworthiness of the transactions and genuineness of the transactions. Notices issued u/s 133(6) have been responded to. In such a scenario, the onus to dislodge the assessee’s claim, in our opinion, was shifted back to Ld. AO and he was duty bound to investigate the case further. However, the facts on record nowhere establishes that such further inquiries / investigations have subsequently been conducted by AO in the present case. Additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises See KALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANIF [1963 (2) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT], ROSHAN DI HATTI. [1977 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] AND ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LIMITED [1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided against revenue.
|