TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ₹ 1,30,20,026/- could not be held as unexplained under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and same were rightly deleted by CIT(A) with a direction to Assessing Officer to initiate necessary steps to bring the relevant amounts to tax u/s. 68 in respective assessment years - Decided against revenue - ITA. No. 5984/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 23-10-2015 - SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Jeetendra Kumar, D.R. For The Respondent : Dr. P. Daniel and Shri S.M. Makhija, A.R. ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai, dated 31.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 026/- as unexplained cash credit by treating share application money as not genuine. In course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to submit the proof of share application money received and to submit evidences to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the persons giving share application money. Assessee was also asked to submit complete documents starting from share advertisement inviting share application till the intimation to ROC for this purpose. Assessee furnished only name and address along with PAN of persons from whom share application money of ₹ 7,20,20,026/- had been received. Assessing Officer observed that assessee had neither submitted confirmations nor tried to establish the genuineness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersons to assessee in A.Y. 2006-07. In this connection, said parties submitted their confirmations to Assessing Officer in response to the notices u/s.133(6) issued by him in course of remand proceedings. It was stated by assessee in course of remand proceedings that assessee transferred these amounts aggregating to ₹ 2,26,00,000/- to its sister concern, namely, M/s Sonata Realty Pvt. Ltd. by way of cheque in A.Y.2007-08. However, in A.Y. under appeal, it was explained by assessee that M/s. Sonata Realty Pvt. Ltd. again transferred these amounts back to assessee under instructions from concerned parties. According to Assessing Officer, transfer of share application money in the names of above persons in A.Y. under consideration was ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000/-), while no reply was received from M/s. RGV Films Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.1,18,20,026/-). In this regard, it was informed by him that assessee vide letter dated 14.06.2013 expressed its inability to get confirmations or details of transactions from the above three parties. It is accordingly urged that action of Assessing Officer to treat the sums received from these three parties aggregating to ₹ 1,30,20,026/- as undisclosed income u/s. 68 deserves to be upheld. 4.2 In its rebuttal to remand report, assessee had contended that such addition cannot be made or confirmed in A.Y. under appeal, because share application money from M/s. RGV Films Pvt. Ltd. was received in A.Y. 2006-07 whereas Mr. Hetal Parekh and Ms. Kanchan Sharma contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
