9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order dated 05.05.2010 accepting the total income as declared by the assessee company in its return of income. The said assessment made by the A.O. was subsequently set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) vide an order dated 11.03.2013 passed under section 263 by treating the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue with the direction to the A.O. to make the assessment afresh after examining the issue relating to share capital and share premium amount of Rs. 54.35 crores appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee in terms of section 68. 3. As per the direction of the A.O., notice under section 142(1) was issued by the A.O. to the assessee company on 20.01.2014. The said notice however was returned back by the postal authority unserved as the assessee company was not found at the given address. Summons issued by the A.O. under section 131 to the directors of the assessee company as well as to the directors of the shareholder companies also were returned back unserved by the postal authority. The assessee company thus failed to establish the identity as well as creditworthiness of the concerned shares-holders and also failed to establish the genuineness of the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made by the A.O. under section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit was not sustainable. In support of this contention, reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 and that of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Parmeshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404. 6. The Submissions filed by the assessee along with the relevant supporting documentary evidence were forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the A.O. for his verification and comments. In the remand report submitted to the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O. offered his comments after verifying the supporting documentary evidence filed by the assessee as under: "As directed, the assessee company was requested to furnish evidences in support of the claim made before you that share capital along with share premium for the total sum of Rs. 54,35,00,000/- was actually received during the F.Y. 1999-2000. The assessee company furnished copy of the share application, copy of Form 2 being date of allotment 31.10.1999, a copy of bank statement for the F.Y. 1999-2000 and copy of the bank statement of the share applicants for F.Y. 1999-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the assessee for his verification and comments. As per the direction of the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O. verified the documentary evidence filed by the assessee and found the same to in order. He also verified the claim of the assessee company from the share subscriber companies and found that the entire share capital along with share premium amounting to Rs. 54.35 crores was actually received by the assessee company during the F.Y. 1999-2000 relevant to A.Y. 2000-01. Keeping in view this categorical finding given by the Assessing Officer in his remand report after verifying the claim of the assessee company from the relevant documentary evidence as well as from the share subscriber companies, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the amount in question towards share capital and share premium having been received by the assessee company in the earlier year, the same could not be treated as unexplained cash credit for the year under consideration. To arrive at this conclusion, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the following judicial pronouncements: "i. In CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) it was held in para (6) of the order: '(6) Here, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year does not become an investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94." 9. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (supra) as well as by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Bohra (supra), the amount received by the assessee in the earlier year and not in the year under consideration and duly credited in the books of account of the assessee for such earlier year cannot be added under section 68 as unexplained cash credit for the year under consideration. In our opinion, the ratio of the said two judicial pronouncements is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 during the year under consideration by treating the amount in question towards share capital and share premium which was received by the assessee company in the earlier year and not in the year under consideration. At the time of hearing before us, the learned DR has not disputed this factual position or even the applicability of the ratio of the said two judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks of account of the assessee during the year ending on 31.03.2005. The assessee's case is that this is the closing capital as on 31.03.2000 and on 01.04.2000 it was an opening balance. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that what was already credited in the books of account ending on 31.03.2000 for A.Y. 1999-2000 relevant to A.Y. 2000-01 cannot be an unexplained cash credit in the books of account maintained for the F.Y. 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06 so as to warrant this consideration as unexplained cash credit for relevant A.Y. 2005-06." 11. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Geoletic Supply Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case Parmeshwar Bohra (supra), we uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 by treating the amount of share capital and share premium received during the earlier year as unexplained cash credits for the year under consideration. 12. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
