TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has failed to furnish correct address of tenant but ignored to note that the respective tenant is a Private Limited Company and the information regarding registered office would have been gathered from Registrar of Companies, if the AO was having doubt about the correct address, but no such exercise has been done by the AO - letter from Tenant confirmed the fact that the deposit of the property was given in the month of February, 2008, where he has admitted the mistake in TDS certificate and confirmed they have paid rent only for February & March, 2008 also confirmed the balance in their books of account which tallied with the books of account of the assessee - in favour of assessee. - ITA No.388/Agr/2011 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2012 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, JJ. Appellant by : Shri Atesham Ansari, Jr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri Arun Daga, C.A. ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Gwalior for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on the following grounds :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(Appeals) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit confirming the fact that he has invested Rs.10,50,000/-in share application thus source of the investment was out of agricultural income. Shri Rajveer Singh Yadav was holding 20 bhigas of agricultural land. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee company has discharged onus regarding entries in books of account in respect of share application money. The Assessing Officer has wrongly rejected the assessee s submission without bringing on record any adverse material gathered as a result of any independent third party enquiry if the submission of the assessee was not found satisfactory. The CIT(A) accepted the fact that section 68 of the Act impose the Assessing Officer to make enquiries to find out true nature and source of sum credited in the account book even if it is credit in respect of share application money. The CIT(A) was of the view that if the assessee has satisfied the conditions of section 68, the addition on account of share application money does not warrant. The CIT(A) noted that in the case under consideration the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry to show that the amount credited as share application money does not represent so, whereas the assessee has give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose unless it has been examined and found from the financial statement, if any, enclosed to the return of income that the share applicants were having creditworthiness to apply for such shares. In case of Shri Rajveer Singh Yadav who has given share application money of Rs.10,50,000/- but looking to the amount, the material is not sufficient to show that the assessee has satisfied prima facie the creditworthiness of share applicants. The Hon ble Apex Court while rejecting the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd, 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) wherein the High Court affirmed the deletion of addition made on account of sum received from Directors and promoters and also by way of public issue. The relevant finding of the Apex court is reproduced as under :- (319 ITR (St) 6) The Court while dismissing held that Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? We find no merit in this special leave petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee-company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kolkata address have been received un-served by the A.O. with the remarks left and refused . TDS certificate dated 04.07.08 shows receipt of rent of Rs.6,66,000/- on 01.08.07 on which prescribed TDS at Rs.1,32,084/- along with surcharge and education cess has been deposited on 08.08.07 and 20.08.07. Lease agreement between the appellant co. and M/s. Salasar International Pvt. Ltd. is dtd. 05.07.07, according to which both parties have agreed to handover the possession of premises on or before 31.03.07. Amount received in respect of rent of Rs.6,66,000/- on which TDS has also been deducted has accordingly been shown by the appellant as per return filed on 13.10.08. The lessee, i.e. Salasar International Pvt. Ltd. has categorically confirmed and clarified vide its letter dtd. 21.10.10 that premises have been taken over from February, 08 and accordingly only 2 months rent has been paid during the financial year. Inadvertently and by mistake TDS has been deducted and paid in the month of August due to receipt of advance but it pertains to rent of February March, 2008 only. Balance shown in the books of accounts tallies with that of the appellant as per its books of accounts which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
