TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss accounts, master data of companies from MCA website, copies of bank accounts to evidence the transactions through banking channels, copies of MA AA and share certificates of all the companies. All these transactions were entered into through banking channels and these companies are active on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Despite the filing all these information with the AO, he did not conducted any verification or investigation to dig out the truth but acted on the information supplied by the investigation wing. CIT(A) considered the contentions of the assessee in detail and came to the conclusion that assessee has duly proved the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the parties by filing all the necessary evidences during assessment proceedings. Addition made under Section 68 is bad in law. These Companies are the assessee's Shareholders - Decided against revenue. - ITA Nos. 4277 & 4278/MUM/2017 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2019 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Dr. P. Daniel, A.R. For the Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, D.R. ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Ltd. 500,000 16.01.07 8 Lexus Infotech Ltd. 1,000,000 08.01.07 9 Olive Overseas P Ltd. (Realgold Trading Co. P. Ltd.) 1,000,000 16.10.06 ' 10 Vanguard 3ewels Ltd. 500,000 15.11.06 12 Yash V Jewels Ltd, 1,000,000 08.2.06 TOTAL 1,00,00,000 And thus the income has escaped to the extent of ₹ 1,00,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings in response to questionnaire from the AO, the assessee filed various information comprising copy of IT return, audit report, balance sheet, profit and loss account along with enclosures from time to time. The AO observed on the basis of said documents that during the year the assessee raised share capital and share premium accountas there was an addition of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- and accordingly assessee was asked to submit the details of the said share capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not justified in having disregarded overwhelmingly supportive evidence. No cogent material was adduced by him to show that loans were unexplained. Therefore, the impugned addition of under the heading share application money as made in the assessment order, fails on several counts - (1) reliance on evidence that is totally inadequate; (2) failure to make available incriminating material (reports, statements etc.) forming basis for action by the AO; (3) failure to give due opportunity to the appellant to cross examine witnesses, whose statement might have been relief upon; and (4) failure to recognize the satisfactory nature of the explanation /evidence tendered by the appellant to explain identity of creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the loan transactions. Hence the impugned addition cannot be sustained. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as judicial pronouncements referred and relied above by me and also certain judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant in its written submission which has been produced above, addition made by the AO under the heading share capital/share application money amount cannot be sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally prayed before the bench that in view of facts, the order of CIT(A) with is otherwise a very detailed and reasoned order needs to be upheld. It is submitted that both the years together there are 12 parties out of which 3 parties, i.e. M/s. Javda India Impex Ltd., Kush Hindustan Entertainment Ltd. and Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Realgold Trading Co. P. Ltd.) were already considered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Hyderabad in the case of M/s, Komal Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v. I.T.O. Hyderabad wherein the ITAT held that the addition made under Section 68 is bad in law. These Companies are the assessee's Shareholders. It is further submitted that the Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd. 394ITR 680 (Born) held that the proviso to Section 68 would not be applicable to Share Premium prior to 01.04.2013 and hence addition made u/s. 68 is directed to be deleted. The Jurisdictional High Court consistently following this decision and hence it is prayed that the departmental appeal be dismissed. The assessee relies on the following decisions:- 1. Komal Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v. I.T.O. (ITAT Hyderabad) 2. M/s. Rushabh Enterprises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary evidences during assessment proceedings. We further note that out of the 12 parties , 3 parties, i.e. M/s. Javda India Impex Ltd., Kush Hindustan Entertainment Ltd. and Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Realgold Trading Co. P. Ltd.) were already considered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Hyderabad in the case of M/s, Komal Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v. I.T.O. Hyderabad wherein the ITAT held that the addition made under Section 68 is bad in law. These Companies are the assessee's Shareholders. It is further submitted that the Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd. 394ITR 680 (Born) held that the proviso to Section 68 would not be applicable to Share Premium prior to 01.04.2013 and hence addition made u/s. 68 is directed to be deleted. Therefore, after perusing all the decisions cited by the ld AR and in view of the above facts, we are of the considered view that order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is a correct ,very reasoned and detailed one and accordingly we uphold the same. 8. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.4278/M/2017 9. The issue involved in the present appeal is identical to the one as stated above in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
