TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arranging accommodation bills - Held that:- There is no challenge to the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the additions on account of bogus purchases is not sustainable. In such a case, there is no reason why the 2% commission would have been allegedly paid on accommodation bills. Thus, there is no unexplained expenditure as even according to the Revenue, before us, there are no bogus purchases. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal in the present facts is a possible view and therefore this Question does not give rise to any substantial question of law - Income Tax Appeal No. 83 of 2016 Alongwith 84, 85, 463, 465 Of 2016 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA, SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. N.C. Mohanty, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. F.V. Irani a/w. Mr. Atul Jasani, Advocate for the respondent. P.C. :- 1. These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenge the common impugned order dated 17th April, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order relate to Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2011-12. These five appeals are in respect of Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 for the subject assessment years. In Appeal, the CIT(A) for subject Assessment Years confirmed the addition on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act relating to introduction of share capital. However, the CIT (A) by common order dated 19th September, 2014 partly allowed the Appeal to the extent of deleting commission of 2% in respect of the share capital and on account of 5% discount on purchases in respect of share capital. This, while upholding the assessment orders dated 30th March, 2013 under Section 68 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, both the Revenue, as well as, the respondent-assessee filed Appeals to the Tribunal. The respondent challenged the impugned order of the CIT(A) to the extent, it upheld the addition under Section 68 of the Act on account of share capital and in respect of part confirmation on account of commission and cash discount. The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT (A) on account of part deletion on account of commission and cash discount in respect of share capital. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 17th April, 2015 allowed the Appeal of the respondent on issue of cash credit and also in respect of commission an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents in shares. Infact, our Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-1 V/s. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 1613 of 2014) rendered on 20th March, 2017 and in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 V/S. M/s. SDB Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 1356 of 2015) rendered on 27th March, 2018 has held that the requirement to explain the source of the source of the funds in respect of the investment as shareholders in which the public are not substantially interested as share application money is only prospective as it is introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 2013. The Delhi High Court in the case of Nipun Builders and Developers (supra), held the creditworthiness of the shareholder was not accepted, as the source of the funds of the shareholder was not explained. This was for a period prior to Assessment Year 2013-14 and the subsequent introduction of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act was not considered by the Delhi High Court. We are bound by the decisions of this Court in Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Besides, before the Delhi High Court in Nipun Builders and Developers (supra), the identity of the shareholders was not established as the summons se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment made in the respondent-assessee Company was an investment which he did not want to make. So far as the shares allegedly/supposedly being taken by the members of the family of the Director of the respondent is concerned, the statement made by Mr. Jain dated 9th September, 2010 is not with regard to the respondent, Company but in respect of its sister company. Thus, there is no conclusive evidence in support of the above submission in the context of the respondent. In any case, this would not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the original investment made by the shareholder in the respondent-assessee was not genuine. This, at the highest, may give rise to suspicion but it does not prove that the investment made originally in the respondent-assessee's Company was not genuine. Thus, not in the nature of cash credit as alleged by the Revenue. (e). In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal, on examination of facts, has come to the conclusion that the investment made by the shareholders is not hit by Section 68 of the Act. It records, that the entire basis of the Revenue's case is based on surmise that the respondent was taking bogus purchase bills and cash was intr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
