TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of investments and the return of income was originally filed by the assessee on 13.10.2017 declaring nil income, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, on the basis of some documents impounded on the search and seizure operation carried out on Brahmputra Group of cases u/s. 132 on 28.09.2010, notice u/s. 153C was issued to the assessee requiring it to file the return of its income. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 28.01.2013 submitted that the return already filed may be deemed to have been filed in response to notice u/s. 153C of the IT Act. Further in response to notices u/s. 143(2)/143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed requisite details and complete books of account, which were examined by the Assessing Officer. From the details so submitted, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee raised share capital money worth ₹ 10,00,000/- from the following companies based in Kolkata/Howarah. Sl. No. Name of the Company No. of Shares Nominal value of share (Rs) Premium paid per share (Rs) Date of allotment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to how the said documents were incriminating to the assessee or the same belong to the assessee. It is further submitted that two such cases of the group are Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd. for A.Y. 2007-07 and M/s. Brahmaputra Realtors (P) Ltd. (A.Y. 2007- 08) where also similar additions were made on the basis of the very same documents. The matter in those cases travelled upto the Tribunal and the identical additions have been deleted by the Tribunal in both the above cases vide orders dated 29.12.2017 and 23.04.2018. It was next contended on behalf of the assessee that none of the documents/papers pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order belong to the assessee and therefore, the notice issued u/s. 153C itself is invalid. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i). Pr. CIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del.) (ii). CIT vs. Arpit Land (P) Ltd., 393 ITR 276 (Bom) (iii). Canyon Financial Services Ltd. vs. ITO, 399 ITR 202 (Del) (iv). CIT vs. Renu Construction (P) Ltd. , 399 ITR 262 (Del.) (v). Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 367 ITR 112 (Del), SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in Appeal No. 4659/2015 dated 04.12.2017 (vi). M/s. Pepsico ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 30 lakhs in the name of Mr. A. Singhal and M.L. Aggarwala dividing into ₹ 25 lakhs and 5 lakhs respectively. On this page the name of Sudarshan Casting P. Ltd. is also written. These documents led the Assessing Officer to doubt share capital raised by the assessee and to make addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. We find considerable substance in the contention of the assessee that the above documents neither go to suggest any undisclosed income of the assessee nor any nexus with the share capital declared by the assessee. In fact, the Assessing Officer has derived inferences/presumptions on the basis of above papers found in the search without proving them as belonging to the assessee or their nature being incriminating to the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not found fit to support, having been passed without proving the primary ingredients of section 153C of the Act. It is worthwhile to note that the very same papers, as listed above, were also taken against the other group companies, i.e., Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd. and M/s. Brahmaputra Realtors (P) Ltd. for the assessment year 2007-08 and similar additions we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in bring back their unaccounted/undisclosed income in the guise of share capital/share application money. 4.11 We find that the Item No. (i) contains recording in the name of Shri Shyam Trexim Fincom Pvt. Ltd . The Assessing Officer has nowhere brought on record how the said recording on the page relates to the addition in question of share capital. The Ld. CIT(DR) also could not explain as how the said recording was related to the addition in question made in respect of alleged unexplained share capital. She only stated that said recording on the page reflected accommodation entry obtained by the Brahmaputra Group and but no documentary evidence regarding the claim that the document was incriminating qua the addition, are filed. In respect of the Items No. (ii) to (v), the Ld. counsel has submitted that additions in respect of the amounts mentioned in the document has been made in the case of another company namely M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd in assessment year 2009-10. This fact was not controverted by Ld. CIT(DR). Thus, we find that no incriminating material qua the addition made is found during the course of search from the premises of the assessee. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
