TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces which even remotely suggests that the transactions are ingenuine, ld. AO cannot say that the amount invested by the depositors is income of the assessee under section 68 of the I.T. Act. Further, the LD DR could not point out before us and infirmity in the order of the ld CIT (A) in deleting the addition. Further, we also do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions of ₹ 5.20 Crores with respect to 17 companies to whom the share were issued. In the result, both the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 6099/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-12-2016 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member Appellant by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o were Private Limited Companies amounting to ₹ 5.20 crores divided between share capital of ₹ 1.30 crores and share premium of ₹ 3.90 crores. The total share allotted to the companies was equity share of ₹ 10/- each with a premium of ₹ 30 per share. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee submitted confirmation of the Share Holders, their Bank Statements, the Income Tax Return of the Companies, Affidavit of the Companies and Form No. 2 being Return of Allotment filed with the Registrar of Companies for allotment of shares. Therefore, according to assessee, it has discharged initial onus cast upon him. However, the AO asked the assessee to produce the Directors of the Company which assessee did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome tax returns of parties , Confirmations , Form - 2 being Return of Allotment being filed to ROC and Affidavits of parties . He further submitted that AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to all 17 parties and notices stood served, positive replies received consisting of confirmation, ITR, Pan copy, Bank A/c statement, Balance Sheets, certificate of Incorporation, etc. he further submitted that as per the balance sheets, sufficient funds were available with the depositors. The AO called the bank statements of such third parties who had given the funds to such shareholders which funds were received by the assessee as share capital / premium. Such information was called for only in respect of six parties out of total 17 parties as per details on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is at the Asstt. stage cannot be viewed adversely. He further submitted that The AO also never adventured, to directly call such parties. He further submitted that It is also not a case, where there is a finding or material to suggest that the money has come back to assessee. He further submitted that the information collected by the AO in respect of the source of the source is only for 6 parties out of total 17 parties and on the basis of 6 parties, claim for total 17 parties cannot be rejected. Further, the amount, as per the AO which was deposited in cash has been quantified by the AO only ₹ 1,10,50,000/- while, the amount under consideration is ₹ 5,20,00,000/- The AO cannot take a adverse view for total ₹ 5,20,00,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuineness of the transactions was doubted. The assessee has produced before the Ld. CIT(A) a Chart showing the availability of funds with these companies and also these companies were assessed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act. In view of this, Ld. CIT(A) has correctly held that merely because the cash was deposited in the bank account of the other parties/ shareholders date prior to the issue of cheque to the assessee company, it cannot be said that they are not creditworthy. The creditworthiness neither gets enhanced nor gets reduced by the simple reason of depositing cash into the bank account before issue of cheques. In case of regular assesses who are assessed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, it is also not the case of the AO that cash was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
