9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med the investment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in the appellant company. Just because the same was subsequently declared as shell company does not make a ground for addition U/s 68, No other evidence or reason has been mentioned for making the disallowance. 3. For that complete details were furnished demonstrating mat the unsecured loan amount was duly returned back to the lender company in the subsequent year along with interest on which TDS was also deducted. As such, the addition made for Principal amount of Rs, 1,00,00,000/- and interest amount of Rs. 36,986/- U/s 68 is unjustified, illegal and fit to be delete. 4. For that Id. AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs, 88,745/- being the sundry creditors. Rs. 74,713/- was added in name of M/s Eastern Trading Agency and Rs. 14,032/- was added in name of M/s Annapuma Trading, The creditors are our regular business concerns and ledger for the current year as well as for previous and subsequent year was furnished before the lower authorities. Further the opening balance appearing for Rs. 15,486/- in name of M/s Eastern Trading Agency was also added. Moreover ledger was also furnished till Decemebr'2018 showing that the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s named as Eastern Trade Agency and Anupama Trading did not respond to the notice of AO issued u/s.133(6) of the Act. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why these creditors balance should not be added to the total income of the assessee and accordingly the total some of Rs. 88,745/- was added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Feeling aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and remand report submitted by the AO and rejoinder of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted a written synopsis which reads as under :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,36,986/- U/s 68 being the unsecured loan amount and interest due thereon received from M/s Matribhumi Fincap India Ltd. The sole basis of the authorities below to have sustained this addition is that the lender company i.e. M/s Matribhumi Fincap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to such applicants. Hence, there was no need for the Assessing Officer to make addition of Rs. 95,15,000/-. 6. It appears that before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also such prayer could have been made by the Department for issuance of Notices upon share applicants. No such application was preferred before C.I.T. (Appeals) by this appellant. Hence, we see no reason at this stage to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for further verification of share applications. 7. It appears that similar type of cases are coming to this court often and most of the time same type of error is committed by the Assessing Officers, either deliberately or due to "induced ignorance". This is not the first time such type of matter has been taken up by this Court It is now high time for the Commissioner, Income Tax to have orientation courses or induction courses conducted for the Assessing Officers to make them understand that whenever assessee receives any amount by cheque, there is a need for the Assessing Officer to give notice to the drawers of those cheques. In the case of ACIT Vs M/s. H.K. Pujara Builders dated 22/02/2019, Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai has held that Since the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee because the assessee was unable to satisfy the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act, mainly the creditworthiness of the company has not been proved before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). The lender company is showing meagre income and the action under the Companies Act has also been initiated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong. He also referred to pages 1 to 25 of the paper book. Ld. DR referred to the paper book pages 3 to 6 which was submitted by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ranchi vide F.No.DCIT/C-2/RAN/Remand Report/2018-19/2242, dated 29.01.2019 and submitted that the order passed by both the authorities below deserves to be sustained. 7. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire material available on record along with orders of authorities below and the paper books filed by both the parties, at the outset, we notice from the bank statement filed by the ld. AR of the of the assessee maintained with HDFC Bank branch Ranchi, bearing Account No.01500120000011, that the AR of the assessee stated that the assessee company has taken loan from M/s Matribhumi Fincap (Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
