TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The order of the learned CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- made u/s 68 being the unexplained cash credit. 2.1 Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the credit-worthiness of creditors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,000/- being the commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries. 2. The assessee has taken the following cross objections:- 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ques from banks. The AO called for details from the bank. From the bank statements, it was observed that the amounts had been credited in the bank on the same date. While making the addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- as the assessee s unaccounted money routed through bank account existing in the names of the alleged creditor party and a commission of 2%, amounting to ₹ 50,000/- , the AO observed that simply furnishing the addresses of the parties and return of income, etc., was not enough since this did not facilitate cross verification; that at best, these were only peripheral documents; that the summons issued to the parties remained uncomplied with; that the parties had neither been produced, nor any substantive evidence had been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen that there was a uniform pattern of transactions inasmuch as invariably, the issue of cheques was immediately preceded by the deposits or equivalent amounts in the account either in cash or through cheque/transfer entries; that unless the identity and credit-worthiness of the entity and the transactions represented by the entries in the bank were co-related with the so called business activity and the books of account of the entity, the pattern and frequency of deposits and withdrawals at short intervals lent further credence to the fact of the account having been used only for the purpose of providing accommodation entries; that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity and credit-worthiness of the concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the genuineness of the transactions; that the ld. CIT(A) has also failed to consider that in the present case, despite being provided sufficient opportunities, the assessee company did not produce the alleged share applicants before the AO; and that not even confirmations from the said parties were filed before the AO by the assessee company. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee, has strongly supported the impugned order. It has been contended that the addition has been correctly deleted by the ld. CIT(A), since the same had been made merely on the basis of conjectures, surmises and assumptions, in the absence of any adverse material whatsoever against the assessee company; and that it remains a fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction had been brought on record by the AO. The documents filed by the assessee have not been stated, in the assessment order, as having been even attempted to be verified. No independent enquiry or verification in this regard was carried out. Moreover, as rightly observed by the ld. CIT(A), it is not evincible from the assessment order as to what was the desired documentary evidence required to be filed by the assessee in support of its claim. The assessment records of the share applicants were not verified, even though the names of the share applicants did exist on the file of the Income Tax Department and their Income Tax details had been furnished by the assessee to the AO. No steps were taken to get the assessment records of the sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following Lovely Exports (supra), was upheld. 14. In CIT v. Winstral Petrochemicals (P)Ltd. (supra), it was, inter alia, held that merely because the share applicants did not respond to the notices sent to them, the AO was not justified in adding the amount of share application money to the income of the assessee. Lovely Exports (supra) was relied on. 15. In ITO v. More Credit Securities Ltd. , (supra), it was held that the assessee had provided all the necessary details for establishing the identity of the parties and so, addition of share application money as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. Lovely Exports (supra) was followed. 16. In CIT v. Dwarkadhish Inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
