TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) and even before us. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.579/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2015 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Robin Rawal, Sr. D.R. For the Respondent : S h. Salil Agarwal, Adv. Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 27/10/2010 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. B. Material facts mentioned in the Assessment Order ⦁ Specific Information received from the Investigation Wing ⦁ Statements recorded by the Investigation Wing of Shri Mukesh Gupta who provided accommodation entries through various companies in which he is Director. ⦁ Statements of persons recorded whose accounts were used for the purpose of accommodation entries and in return received some monthly remuneration. ⦁ The persons from whose accounts the money was transferred, are not having the sufficient liquidity of the funds to invest in Share Capital without arranging the cash funds. The source of the said cash fund has been explained in their statements to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Builtech Pvt. Ltd. 366 ITR 110 Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Cash Credit - The assessee, a newly incorporated company issued share capital of 11 lakhs at a premium of 1000% and received a sum of ₹ 1.10 crores from 39 shareholders. The CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal deleted the addition u/s 68 made by AO on the ground that assessee has produced the identity of shareholders and 28 out of 39 S/H have responded to the notices served u/s 133(6) also. The HC made the addition in respect of 11 investors who either did not receive the notice or did not submit any confirmation - Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Empire Buildtech P. Ltd. 5. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted by the respective board to the share holders for which all the necessary formalities being board meeting, return of allotment to the Registrar of Companies issue of share filing of Annual Return was completed by the company. All the three conditions i.e. Identity Creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction have been proved beyond doubt as per documentary evidence place on record. Further Shri Mukesh Gupta whose statement has been made as basis for that he has invested the money in lieu of cash, the Assessing Officer has drawn his own inference that in case of assessee company investment in the share application money is for consideration of cash. There is no evidence in this regard available on record thus addition has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
