TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een allotted and when. All these facts needs to thoroughly scrutinized and examined by both the authorities. Revenue’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 5499/Del./2010 - - - Dated:- 22-5-2017 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member Revenue by : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Vijay K. Sichchal, CA ORDER Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member The aforesaid appeal has been filed by theRevenue against impugned order dated 2.9.2010, passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the A.Y. 2007-08. In the grounds of appeal Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of ₹ 5,52,65,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 ignoring the fact that even if paper identify of the share applicants have been established, yet for the purpose of accepting the genuineness of funds u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, the physical identity of the share application has to be established and in the present case the same has not happened. Reliance is pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. M/s. Rolex Exports Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Vimsai Trading India Pvt. LTd. M/s. Gamma Avionics Distribution Pvt. Ltd. He also deputed ITI to make enquiries in respect of two companies, however he had reported that no such Company existed on the given addresses. Based on these information, and also the fact that some of notices issued u/s 133(6) were not responded by these parties, he held that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction and added the entire amount of share application of money of ₹ 3,52,65,000/- u/s 68. 3. Before us Learned CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that, already a copy of confirmation letters from share applicants along with the details of amount invested, copy of their PAN, bank statements andcopy of acknowledgement of return of income was filed before the Assessing Officer. In fact in two cases, the parties have filed their confirmations along with the supporting documents directly before the Assessing Officer in compliance of notice u/s 133(6). Regarding other Companies, the assessee submitted that notices which were sent by the AO were on wrong addresses and this fact was duly intimated to the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DR, submitted that when Assessing Officer has made his enquiry and found that either these parties have not responded to the notices issued or the assessee could not produce the parties, then the onus lied heavily upon the assessee to show that the transaction of share application money is genuine. In support of his contention he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Jan Sampark Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd judgment order dated 11.3.2015. Thus, he submitted that the finding of the Learned CIT(Appeals) that the transaction is genuine is without considering the fact that none of the parties were produced or could be established that the share applicants were genuine and not shell companies. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the assessee had discharged its prima-facie onus to prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the share application money and the share applicants. He submitted that all the six entities were private limited companies who have given their letter of confirmations, their bank statements, PAN and acknowledgement of IT return. These document itself goes to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contentions raised by the parties before us and also on perusal of material on record, we find that though the assessee may have filed certain information and details to prima facie prove the nature and source of the credit appearing in its books of account which was in the form of share application money received from six companies, however when the Assessing Officer had carried out his own set of enquiries and found that some of the transactions are either not confirmed independently or they were not found at the given addresses or they have not responded to the notices issued u/s 133(6), then in such circumstances the onus shifts back to the assessee to controvert that outcome of such enquiry was erroneous. The assessee has to prove that that these are not shell companies, existing only in papers. More so, on the perusal of the income tax returns of all the companies, it is seen that in all the cases, return of income has been filed showing Nil income and what has been their source of income or source of availability of funds is also not discernible. When a doubt has been well founded by the AO in his preliminary enquiry, then assessee has to dispel that doubt by proving tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
