TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the ld. counsel that the share applicants for the year under consideration are the same shareholders which applied in the immediately preceding assessment year. - Decided against assessee. - ITA. No. 739/AHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2017 - N. K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) And Mahavir Prasad (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : Urvashi Shodhan, AR For the Respondent : Ashish Pophare, Sr. D.R. ORDER N. K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Baroda dated 18.01.2011 pertaining to A.Y. 2002-03. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,46,98,600/- u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Addition of ₹ 1,46,98,600/- was accordingly made. 7. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). It was strongly contended that in 15 cases amounts were received by cheques. Photo copies of share application forms were also submitted. The assessee strongly contended that it has established the identities of the persons from whom share application money has been taken. 8. The First Appellate Authority called for a remand report from the A.O. and the A.O. submitted the remand report dated 08.03.2007 in which once again randomly selected applicants were issued summons which returned unserved. Majority of the summons were returned unserved because of incomplete address. 9. After considering the facts and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepted share application money from 273 parties. It is also true that the assessee has furnished the names and addresses of the parties in the list filed before the lower authorities. It is equally true that the notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act and the summons issued by the A.O. were returned unserved. A perusal of the list of the share applicants show that only the names and the name of the village are given. It is also true that the assessee has received cheques from the same cheque-book bearing no. 00490, 200503. It is impossible for different share applicants residing at different villages using the same cheque book for the application of shares. 14. It appears that the share application money introduced by the assessee company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority relied upon by the ld. counsel show that in that year, on investigation it was found that the persons who are purported to have made the investment are not fictitious but are existing and have given the statements which though cast doubt but also establish that they had knowledge about some transactions with the appellant company. Whereas, the facts of the case in hand show that the assessee has grossly failed to establish the identities of the share applicants. None of the share applicants were produced before the A.O. nor any notice could be served upon them as all the notices/summons returned unserved. Secondly, it is not the case of the ld. counsel that the share applicants for the year under consideration are the same shareho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
