TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly ₹ 1 lakh to be explained and balance ₹ 2 lakh to be unexplained. We therefore, hold that the addition of ₹ 2 lakh was not warranted in this case. We therefore direct its deletion. As far as addition of amount received from Sh. Jasbir Singh is concerned, we find that CIT(A) has given a finding that his confirmation, bank statement evidencing bank transfer is on record but since he had not given source of the money, the conditions stipulated u/s 68 have not been complied. We do not agree with the reasoning of CIT(A). When the fact of confirmation, bank transfer and bank statement of the lender of the money has not been found to be incorrect, it cannot be concluded the genuineness of transaction to have not been established. In such a situation we are of the view that no addition was called for in his case - ITA No. 3004/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2021 - SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Revenue by : Smt. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.03.2017 of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessary confirmations and explanation to which assessee inter alia submitted that during the year only ₹ 93,52,000/- was increased in share capital and balance amount was pending share application money which were received in earlier year. AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to the parties on the addresses furnished by the assessee from whom the share capital was stated to have been received by the assessee and in response to which AO noticed that in some of the cases replies was received. AO noted that since the case was getting time barred on 31.03.2015 and in the absence of confirmations from all the parties he considered ₹ 93,52,000/- as being unverifiable and accordingly made its addition u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the material on record, the remand report received from AO and assessee s submission to the remand report granted partial relief to the assessee. With respect to the parties wherein the action of the AO has been upheld, CIT(A) noted as under: Sh. Sanjeevji: He has paid ₹ 4,34,400/- as share application money and premium thereon. The amount has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount has been given by way of bank transfer. However, the applicant has not given any details of the source of the money paid to the appellant company, therefore, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction has not been established. Sh. Ajay Singh: He has claimed to have paid ₹ 3,00,000/- in cash to the appellant company as share application money and premium thereon during the year. He has filed reply in response to notice u/s 133(6) whereby he has sent his confirmation and copy of the landholding documents. However, it is seen from the document that jamabandi is not in the name of Sh. Ajay Singh but same has been shown in the name of Sh. Pratap Singh his father. Hence, the source of the share application money, identity of the applicant and genuineness of the transaction has not been established. Sh. Hanumat Prasad Nautiyal: The applicant claimed to have given share application money of ₹ 10,07,000/- to the appellant company during the year in cash. He has stated that he has invested in the shares of the appellant company and source of the money is agriculture income. In support of his contention, the applicant has filed copy of jama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO stating that he has invested ₹ 86,150/- during the year and ₹ 5,13,850/- in the earlier years. He has stated that he is a farmer and having agriculture land. He has filed copy of share certificate issued to him. There is no other document filed by the applicant. In view of these facts, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction has not been established. Sh. Suresh Arya: The applicant claimed to have given share application money of ₹ 3,00,000/- to the appellant company during the year in cash. The notice sent to him u/s 133(6) was received back un-served. However, he has sent the confirmation to the AO alongwith copy of share certificate in his name during remand proceedings wherein he has stated that he has invested ₹ 3,00,000/- during the year and ₹ 3,00,000/- in the earlier years. He has also stated that he is receiving income agriculture and in support of his contention he has filed details of the landholding which is in the name of his father. Therefore, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction has not been established. Sh. Narendra Arya: The appellant company has received ₹ 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suman Arya of ₹ 2,00,000/-, Jasbir Singh of Rs,5,00,000/-, Ajay Singh of ₹ 3,00,000/-, Hanumat Prasad Nautiyal of ₹ 10,07,000/-, Sunil Shastri of ₹ 3,00,000/- , Virender Arya of ₹ 10,99,000/-, Sulekh Arya of ₹ 86,150/-, Suresh Kumar of ₹ 3,00,000/-, Narender Arya of ₹ 10,56,000/- and Mahender Arya of ₹ 10,00,000/- has not found to be explained. The investors as well as the appellant were not able to substantiate the source of the investments made by them, therefore, the share capital to the extent of ₹ 62,82,150/- has been found to be unexplained. Therefore, the addition made by the AO to the extent of ₹ 62,82,150/- is upheld. As a result, the appellant gets a relief of ₹ 30,52,450/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the AO and CIT(A) and further submitted that CIT(A) has upheld the addition of ₹ 62,82,150/- without considering the document and evidences produced and has erred in coming to the conclusion that the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of share applications have not been proved by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r documents like the contention of income being from agricultural activities was not supportive of their contentions. He has also noted that the documents furnished did not prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. Considering the aforesaid factual findings, which has not been found to be incorrect/ false, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) to that extent. 12. As far as addition of the amount of ₹ 2 lakh from Sh. Suman Arya is concerned, we find that CIT(A) has given a finding that the amount was paid by cheque/ bank transfer, she was employed as a teacher and had total income of ₹ 3,26,334/-. In such a situation we find there was no justification for holding only ₹ 1 lakh to be explained and balance ₹ 2 lakh to be unexplained. We therefore, hold that the addition of ₹ 2 lakh was not warranted in this case. We therefore direct its deletion. 13. As far as addition of ₹ 5 lakh of amount received from Sh. Jasbir Singh is concerned, we find that CIT(A) has given a finding that his confirmation, bank statement evidencing bank transfer is on record but since he had not given source of the money, the conditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
