9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. 3. In this case information was received from the Investigation Wing of Delhi that the assessee has received the accommodation entries from entry operators after paying its unaccounted cash. Therefore, notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act was issued. As per the reasons recorded before the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act certain investigations were carried out by the Director of Investigation, New Delhi in respect of accommodation entries provided by certain individuals / companies. The name of the assessee figured as one of the beneficiaries of these alleged bogus transactions given by the Directorate after makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard. Hence, he held that the total amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- in this regard was liable to be added in the hands of the assessee company u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. 4. Upon assessee's appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that assessee has submitted sufficient documents before the Assessing Officer. He opined that the assessee company has discharged its onus to substantiate the identity of the share capital allottee companies, their creditworthiness & source of funds. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) further held that assessee company has received the money through proper banking channel, and has established the identity of the share capital provider company which are duly incorporated companies under the companies act. The confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order has been framed by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department without making any further investigation. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) deleted the addition in this regard. 6. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that in this case the assessee has received share application money of Rs. 10 lacs each from two Private Limited Companies. The following documents/information were furnished to the Assessing Officer in this regard:- "In the case of M/s Melode Electronics Pvt. Ltd.:- i. Copies of Cheques received from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the company (share capital allottees) confirming the that the money has been paid by them by cheque towards the share capital of the assessee company including its PAN No. and the Ward where the Company was assessed. iv. Copy of the bank account of the company from where the money has been paid by them to the assessee company. v. Copy of resolution passed by the share capital applicant companies Board of Directors meeting to apply for the share in the assessee company's capital. vi. Copy of members register maintained under Companies Act, 1956 of the assessee company that the shares were allotted to the applicant company against the amount received by it from the allottee company. vii. Certificate of Incorporation from ROC of allotte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer 'sits back with folded hands' till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions. The present case falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer, after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer once the assessee had furnished all the relevant material. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under section 68. In view of the above, impugned order passed by the Tribunal was to be upheld." 11. We further find that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. 212/2012 vide order dated 11.4.2012 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any exercise to bring on record any evidence which refute the above submissions of the assessee. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), accordingly, we uphold the same.
Assessee's Cross Objection NO. 250/Del/2010
13. In the Cross Objection assessee has raised a ground that the authority below erred in confirming the proceedings u/s. 147/148 of the I.T. Act. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for the Cross Objection. Accordingly, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed.
14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stands dismissed as not pressed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
