9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been deposited and/or transferred in the account of the share applicants before being transferred to the account of the assessee company. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case of CIT(A), Central, Jaipur has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the IT Act on account of share application money and premium received relying upon addresses given in bank statements and master detail of ROC of subscriber companies despite the fact that these agencies do not conduct and filed enquiry as done by the Department and moreover the address proof does not establish creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case of CIT(A), Central, Jaipur has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the IT Act on account of share application money and premium received from the companies without establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction which is contrary to the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oasis Hospitalit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case. He further relied in case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. reported in 205 ITR 98, wherein it has been held that capital receipts in the names of the genuine tax payers introduced in the books of account of the assessee are to be assessed in the hands of such an assessee. Therefore, he added Rs. 2 crores as undisclosed income of the assessee U/s 68 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal by observing as under:- "4. I have considered the submission of the A.R. and have perused the material on record. In brief, 8 private limited companies have subscribed to the share capital alongwith premium totaling Rs. 2 crores, as per list given in the earlier paras, which is under dispute. In respect of all these companies, the appellant filed names, address, PAN No. and also the current confirmation. When the A.O. reported to the appellant about these companies not found at the address given, as reported by the Inspector, the appellant further filed the copy of the Master Details of the company (filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication money by these seven companies, A.O. was totally unjustified in treating the share application money received from these companies as undisclosed income of the appellant company that too only on the basis of inspectors report. 4.2 Now coming to the 8th company namely M/s Megatronics Systems Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that due to change in the address of the company, which were evident from the record of the A.O. by way of ROC details filed by the A.R. on 14/12/2010, the A.O. did not receive information from the said company. On the other hand, the A.R. has already filed the current date confirmation from the said company alongwith PAN and other details as mentioned by A.O. himself on page 3 of the assessment order. Considering these facts and the fact that due to change in address and company was not found at the earlier address given, there was no justification for the A.O. to treat this company as non-existent and further also doubting the transactions. In any case, as in these circumstances, it was not expected from the appellant limited company to file the copy of the bank statement of the subscriber private limited companies, the appellant could not be faulted for not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee even he has coterminous power and had not verified the detail information submitted by the appellant before him. Therefore, he requested to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. At the outset, the learned A.R. for the assessee argued that in assessee's own case in ITA No. 972/2009 CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel and other company for A.Y. 2004-05 held that the assessee had submitted the particulars of registration of the applicant company, the confirmation from the share applicants, bank account details from which payment through account payee cheques, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the assessee had discharged its initially onus. With the registration of the company, the identity has been established, the applicant company was having bank account, it had made the payments through account payee cheques. It is further held that it would not automatically follow that the said money belongs to the assessee and become unaccounted money. According to the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee appears to be correct on this aspect. The Hon'ble Court felt that something more, which was necessary and required to be done by the Assessing Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the subscribers. The learned Assessing Officer heavily relied upon the Inspector's report, which was against the natural justice as the copy was provided on 06/6/2011 to the appellant whereas assessment order was completed by the learned Assessing Officer on 26/12/2010. Jawahar market is evident from the copy of bank account of subscriber, on which this address had been mentioned as well as on master detail of ROC. The share capital was subscribed in F.Y. 2005-06 and inquiries were made in F.Y. 2010- 11. There is a time gap of near about 5 years, the share applicant might have changed their addresses, which could be verified from the ROC by the Assessing Officer to substantiate his findings, which has not been done by him. The learned CIT(A) has called for remand report from the Assessing Officer on furnishing of copy of bank account of M/s Megatronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. at the time of appellate proceedings. Further the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has decided assessee's own case on similar facts in its favour in A.Y. 2006-07. The learned CIT D.R. has not controverted the findings given by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, we upheld the order of the learned CIT(A). 8. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
