9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 64,35,000 u/s. 68 of I.T. Act by completely ignoring the documentary evidence filed to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of various share subscribers. At any rate, the addition as made is very excessive. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in making various observations which are factually incorrect particularly that the Appellant had filed additional evidence alongwith application under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, whereas no additional evidence was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. That the total income assessed at Rs. 11,87,56,430 and the income-tax demand of Rs. 3,85,48,402/- as worked out and interest thereon of Rs. 1,38,37,608/- u/s. 234B aggregating to Rs. 5,23,86,010/- is illegal. 6. That the Appellant reserves its right to add, amend/modify the grounds of appeal." 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of running hotel under the name and style of " Park ascent" at Noida (UP). For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 30/09/2013 declaring loss of Rs. 76,78,838/-. In the scrutiny assessment completed on 20/04/2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the share subscribers before him. The further information filed by the assessee was also not found sufficient by the Assessing Officer to establish identity & creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to few parties for verifying genuineness of the transaction, but in case of M/s. CCL International Ltd and Suresh Chand, the notices remained undelivered and in case of Tanvi Fincap P Ltd, Gynindrasingh, JG International , the notices were delivered but replies were not received. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that no one appeared before him except one party namely Sh. Suarabh Goel . The Ld. Assessing Officer made following conclusions as under: a. All the persons has failed to appear before this office to prove their identity except Mr. Surabh Goel. b. Notice u/s. 133(6) has been returned back undelivered creates doubt about the genuinity of the parties. c. No response has been received where notices u/s. 133(6) has been delivered till date of this order. d. Non submission of complete documents by assessee also creates doubt about the genuineness of the transaction and credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re money are distinctly genuine. Appellant's insistence on the genuineness of transactions based on such minimal documents, fails to mitigate the severities of pointed out by the assessing officer and the corresponding inferences drawn from the documents presented by the appellant. Evidences as well as detailed analysis of all the parameters of the share applicant concerns clearly lay out the lack of genuineness in the transactions, as well as the identity and the credit worthiness of applicant. The appellant, even during the appellate proceeding, has failed to explain such transactions. Most importantly, the very fact that one of the applicant, in his statement, has presented facts, that is otherwise false vis a vis the books of accounts of the appellant, goes on in depth to prove that the applicant had simply cooked up an entry, to hide the actual nature of transaction." 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a paper-book containing pages 1 to 566 and submitted that the Assessing Officer had not issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act in case of all the parties and whatever notices issued were at wrong address resulting into non-delivery. According to him, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of NRA Iron and steel (P) Ltd reported in (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48(SC). She further referred to decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalities Private Limited 333 ITR 119 (Del) wherein it is held that merely providing the identity of the investor does not discharge the onus of the assessee if the capacity or creditworthiness has not been established. The DR submitted that one of the share applicants was a penny stock company which provided bogus long-term capital gains to various persons. The Ld. DR also relied on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 17/01/2019 in the case of CIT Vs NDR promoter's private Limited in ITA 49/2018. In view of the arguments, she objected for restoring the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. On perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A), it is evident that notices under section 133(6) have not been issued to all the share applicant parties and the notices have been issued on the basis of the addresses of the share applicants provided in return of income filed by them for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
