TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce of the said money is duly explained and it cannot be regarded to be an explained one. We, therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 25,40,000/- by setting aside the order of CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee Addition made u/s 68 - Held that:- Both the applicants have the PAN and, they are being assessed to income tax. This proves their identity. Both the companies have the shareholders funds. The payment has been made through cheque and banking channels. Copy of their bank accounts were placed on record. The share application money were ultimately returned by the assessee to the respective share applicants as the shares could not be allotted. The party confirmed receipt of the payment. This fact has not been denied. This is a case where the payments received by the company from these parties amounting to ₹ 57,60,000/- has duly been paid back. This fact is apparent not only from their respective confirmation but also from the bank statement. The fact remains that no share was allotted to these companies. In our opinion, the assessee has duly discharged the onus as lie before the assessee. This is not the case where the share applicants are the bogus one and the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... survey u/s 133A carried on 27.4.06 by the Investigation Wing. A copy of voucher, cash book and yadasht bahi is being enclosed. The cash was carried out by Shri Pradeep Gupta for making payment of freight etc. in relation to sugar export business of the company continued during the year under consideration. Relevant details of sugar purchases and sales are being enclosed. 2.1 The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that the cash was being carried for payment of freight etc as claimed by the assessee as the assessee has not given other details like the sum payable as freight and the name of the agency to whom it was to be paid. The Assessing Officer also noted that all the copies of the vouchers obtained by the survey party on 27/04/2006 that they are written by only one person except the voucher dated 25/04/2006 for ₹ 25 lac through which cash payment of ₹ 25 lac under the seizure has been claimed to have been made through cashier to Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta. He was of the view that the style of writing alphabet P appears different than all other vouchers. He also noted that there was no control number of the vouchers and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee has made the payment for sugar transported from Latur between 01/04/2005 to 24/04/2006. Thus, there are contradiction in the finding given by the Assessing Officer. Even we noted that the voucher also has the same narration that the advance is given for making the draft for sugar trading at Latur. In his statement Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta also stated that the money belongs to the company and is duly recorded in the books of the company. It is not a case where the money has been given by the company outside the books of account. Even no iota of evidence has been brought on record which may prove that the money has been given to Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta by the company outside the books of account. In view of this fact, we are of the view that the nature and source of the said money is duly explained and it cannot be regarded to be an explained one. We, therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 25,40,000/- by setting aside the order of CIT(A). 4. The second issue involved in this appeal as taken vide ground No. 3 to 5 relates to the addition made on account of credit in share application amounting to ₹ 1,15,20,000/-. The facts related to this issue, in brief, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Return for assessment year 2007-08 (iv) Copy of bank statement issued by UTI Bank (v) Extract from master data on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, downloaded in 2015 which shows Active status of the applicant company. (vi) Copy of confirmation issued by the Applicant company for receipt of refund of application money Similarly the following documents were received from M/s Heritage Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (i) Copy of application form and letter (ii) Balance sheet as at 31/03/2007 (iii) Copy of the acknowledgement for e-filing of the IT return for assessment year 2007-08 (iv) Extract from master data on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, downloaded in 2015 which shows Active status of the applicant company. (v) Copy of confirmation issued by the Applicant company for receipt of refund of application money 4.1 Thus, it was contended that these documents were filed before the CIT(A) who has admitted the evidence and called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made the following comments: In support of share application money of ₹ 1,15,20,000/-, the assessee has enclosed a copy of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w address. We noted that again the CIT(A) called for the report from the Assessing Officer but the notice called for the information could not be served. We noted that in this case the question arises whether the assessee has discharged his onus as laid down u/s 68 of the Act. Both the share applicants are income tax assessee. They have filed their income tax return which is apparent from the acknowledgement of the e-filing of the income tax return for the assessment year 2007-08, the copy of which is available at page No. 54 and 61 of the paper book. Both the applicants have the PAN and, they are being assessed to income tax. This proves their identity. Both the companies have the shareholders funds. The payment has been made through cheque and banking channels. Copy of their bank accounts were placed on record. The share application money were ultimately returned by the assessee to the respective share applicants as the shares could not be allotted. The party confirmed receipt of the payment. This fact has not been denied. This is a case where the payments received by the company from these parties amounting to ₹ 57,60,000/- has duly been paid back. This fact is apparent no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
