9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. The assessee is a non-banking finance company and had been engaged in the business of providing loans as investment in shares and securities of other companies. The return of income u/s 139(1) declaring an income of Rs. 88,919/- was filed on 31/3/2010. The Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,34,04,919/- thereby making addition related to unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act with respect to procurement of accommodation entries to share application money from non-descript companies. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not correct in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A without giving proper justification. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has not given adequate opportunity and totally ignored the remand rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient opportunity and was also prejudiced and, accordingly, I had admitted the additional evidence filed by the appellant. I have examined the evidence filed before the AO as well as the additional evidence filed during these proceedings. My observations / findings with regard to each case are as under: Sl. No. Name of the applicants Amount (Rs.) OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS 1. APT Fincap (P) td. 22,00,000 ITR for AY 2009-10 with audited balance sheet, ITR for AY 2011-12, share application and bank statement are filed. Bank statement does not indicate any cash deposit to establish that appellant introduced its own money. Adverse view cannot be taken. 2. Aurochem Softech (P) Ltd. 30,00,000 The case was assessed u/s 143(3) for AY 2007-08 on 29.12.2009 and u/s 143(1) for AY 2009-10 on 04.09.2010 by the Department itself. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 3. Chintapurni Builders (P) Ltd. 30,00,000 ITR for AY 2009-10 with audited balance sheet, ITR for AY 2011-12 and share application are filed. Bank statement filed subsequently does not indicate any cash deposit to establish that appellant introduced its own money. Adverse view cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere not found. Thus, the assessee in our opinion has proved the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of these parties. The case of the sister concern in Superb Developers (supra) has also dealt with some of the parties involved in the present assessee's case. We find that the Tribunal in Superb Developers (supra) held as under: "8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As regards Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal, the CIT(A) rightly taken into considerations the evidence filed by the assessee during the Assessment proceedings. There was no fresh evidence submitted by the Assessee. This fact was not denied by the Revenue. Therefore, Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. On merit of the appeal filed by the Revenue, it is pertinent to take note about the order passed by the CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2006-07 which was handed over by the Ld. AR during the hearing. The CIT(A) for A.Y. 2006-07 held as under:- "I have considered the assessment order, the submissions made and the documents filed. I have already held that the appellant was prevented from discharging its onus on account of insufficient opportunity and was also p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TOTAL 8300000 1200000 8075000 25800000 7500000 5.3. I have examined the evidences filed and my observations / findings with regard to each case are as under: Sl No. Applicant Companies OBSERVATIONS/FINDIGNS 1 Oracle Cables Pvt. Ltd. The case was assessed for AY 2007-08 u/s 143(3) by the Department itself on 29.12.2009. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise 2 Arsey Hosiery Pvt. Ltd The case was assessed for AY 2007-08 u/s 143(3) by the Department itself on 01.12.2009. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 3 Twince Traders Pvt. Ltd. The IT return for AY 2011-12 was electronically filed on 08.03.2012 vide acknowledgment No.348672971080312. This information is available in the I T Department's own data base. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 4 Chardham Impex Pvt. Ltd. The case was assessed for AY 1995-96 u/s 143(3) by the Department itself on 26.10.1998. The IT return for the AY 2010-11 was also filed electronically on 31.03.2011 vide acknowledgement no.211242421310311. Therefore, the question of nonexistence of this co. does not arise. 5 Vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -existence of this co. does not arise. 14 Scient Informatics India Pvt. Ltd. The case was assessed for AY 2007-08 u/s 143(3) by the Department itself on 16.12.2009. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 15 Sevbro Domestic Appliances Pvt. Ltd. ITR for AY 2008-09 was filed on 22.03.2009 vide acknowledgment No.60434730220309. Copies of audited balance sheet, share application and bank statement were also filed. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 16 Skylink Softwares Pvt. Ltd. ITR for AY 2008-09 was filed on 22.03.2009 vide acknowledgment No.60411150220309 and ITR for AY 2011-12 was filed on 31.03.2012 vide acknowledgment No.381257601310312. Copies of audited balance sheet, share application and bank statement were also filed. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 17 APT Properties Pvt. Ltd. Copy of audited balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2009 has been filed. IT records could not be produced. However, MCA master data shows the co. active and having filed the balance sheet as on 31.03.2010. Thus, it cannot be said that the co. did not exist as on 31.03.2009. Co. appears to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Pvt. Ltd., copies of the ITRs could not be furnished by the appellant. Even in these cases, copies of the balance sheets filed indicate that the companies had the funds / sources to make investment in the share application towards the appellant company. The revenue cannot be taking two different stands. On the one hand the revenue is accepting and admitting compliance to its own laws and procedure by way of filing of ITR, payment of taxes, processing and issue of refunds, and also tax scrutiny of cases. On the other hand, the revenue cannot take the stand that the share applications are unexplained as some of the share applicant companies could not be physically located by the Inspector at the given address. For this there could be several reasons - the Inspector may not have done his job properly, or the applicant companies may have changed address. There is no comment by the revenue on the replies admittedly received from the applicant companies by post. There is no comment on the merit of the documents filed. When the appellant was not confronted with the Inspector's report, it cannot be alleged by the revenue that the appellant failed to establish the transactions. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
