TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30/01/2014 for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09. Grounds of appeal in both the appeals are identical except difference in figure. Grounds of appeal for A.Y 2007-08 are reproduced below: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- made under section 68 of I T Act in respect of share application money without appreciating the fact that addition was based on specific information provided by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department that the investor companies had issued cheques towards the alleged share application money in return of cash. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon it to prove the credit entries of share application money as required under the statute. 2. The figure in grounds of appeal for A.Y 2008-09 is a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/-. These appeals were argued together by both the parties and for the sake of convenience both these appeals are disposed of by a single order. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has deleted the addition following the below mentioned decisions. 1. Bharti Syntex Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 172 173/Jp/2010 2. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (bom) 3. Lovely Exports, 6 DTR 308 (SC). The Department is aggrieved, hence, has filed aforementioned appeal. 4. After narrating the facts Ld. DR pleaded that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition and his order should be set aside and that of AO be restored. 5. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. AR that assessee has submitted the copies of various statements recorded by the Department of Mr. Mukesh C. Choksi, which are dated 25/11/2009, 11/12/2009, 3/2/2010, 14/05/2010 and 16/3/2012 and are submitted from pages 135 to 169 of the paper book and as per submissions made by the assessee before AO assessee s name was not appearing in any of the statement and such contention of the assessee has not been controverted by the Revenue till date. It was further submitted that bank account of the assessee firm was also submitted to show that there was no cash withdrawals or deposit. Reference was made to page 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement recorded by the Department the name of the assessee exist. Such contention of the assessee has not been found to be incorrect. To further support, the assessee has filed copy of its bank account to contend that there are no cash deposits or withdrawals. However, Department has not accepted all these evidences and made the addition. Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the evidences submitted by the assessee and relying upon certain decisions has come to the conclusion that such addition was not called for. On the basis of the similar statement other transactions entered into by other assessees with the concerns of Mr. Mukesh C. Choksi were considered as bogus and this issue had come before the Tribunal and Tribunal after considering the facts has deleted those additions. For the sake of completeness relevant observations of the Tribunal from the said decisions are reproduced: (i) ITO vs. Radhika Ravindrakumar Toshniwal (supra) In the said case addition of ₹ 26,73,536/- was made in respect of sale of shares of M/s. Talent Infobay Ltd. and the same was treated as bogus transaction. The Tribunal deleted the addition with the following observations: 4. At the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has furnished copy of the sale bills of the sale of Talent Infoway Ltd, and bank statements including purchase contract notes and other details on the basis of which CIT(A) held the transactions as genuine, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A). Since AO also relied on the findings in the case of assessee s husband in assessment year 2005-06 and the learned CIT (A) also deleted the addition based on the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A). Accordingly the Revenue grounds are dismissed. 6. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (ii) In the case of Smt. Jyoti D. Shah vs. ITO an addition of ₹ 13,13,256/- was made in respect of sale of shares of M/s. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd. as the same belong to concerns of Mr. Mukesh C. Choksi and the said addition was deleted by the Tribunal with the following observations. 6. The AO has not considered the supporting evidences during the course of assessment before concluding that the assessee too was actively involved as a beneficiary by paying cash to the Mukesh Choksi group. The learned Assessing Officer had merely relied on the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
