TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Impex Ltd and Kush Hindustan Entertainment Ltd were already considered by the coordinate bench of the tribunal Hyderabad in the case of M/S Komal Agrotech Pvt Ltd [ 2017 (7) TMI 605 - ITAT HYDERABAD] wherein the Tribunal held that addition made u/s 68 is bad in law. We also find merits in the arguments of the ld AR that the share capital and share premium can not be added u/s 68 in view of the proviso to section 68 as that is effective and applicable from 1.4.2013.We have perused the decisions relied upon by the assessee and are of the opinion that the case is squarely covered by them. Accordingly we do not find any infirmities in the order of CIT(A) who has passed a very reasoned order and accordingly appeal of the revenue is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.9.2009 declaring loss of ₹ 5,08,32,964/- and same was carried forward which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 16.3.2011. The assessment u/s 143(3) was also completed on 23.12.2011 assessing the same loss. Upon receiving information from the DGIT(Inv) Mumbai that the assessee is beneficiaries of accommodation entries of bogus share application money from concerns operated and controlled by Praveen Kumar Jain and the AO found that assessee has received share application money from five parties as under: 1. Duke Business (P) Ltd 15,00,000 2. Javda India Impex Pvt Ltd 15,00,000 3. Kush Hindust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. The AO has only considered the statement of Praveen Kumar Jain and other directors but has not considered the retraction in which it was stated that the statement has been recorded under pressure and duress. The ld CIT(A) also noted that AO has not commented and considered the assessee submissions that Shri Praveen Kumar is not involved in any capacity in the investing companies. The ld CIT(A) also noted that notices u/s 133(6) were issued at the fag end of the proceedings i.e. notices were issued on 15.12.2015 and assessment order was passed on 31.3.2015 and it is not the case that the notices were not served. The ld CIT(A) also observed that the assessee has filed documentary evidences such as MOA, PANs, balance sheet and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC.) and thus deleted he addition. 6. The ld DR relied heavily on the order of AO and submitted that the assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entries racket operated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and associates which was candidly admitted in the statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that they are not doing any business except providing accommodation entries. Thus the assessee is clear beneficiary of the share capital entries from the said entities. The subsequent retraction is an afterthought and AO has rightly made the addition u/s 68. The ld DR submitted that merely documentary evidences would not satisfy the conditions of section 68 of the Act. Even the letter issued by the AO u/s 133(6) were not responded though served upon them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of M/S Komal Agrotech Pvt Ltd Vs ITO wherein the Tribunal held that addition made u/s 68 is bad in law. These companies are shareholders in the assessee company. The ld AR further submitted that proviso to section 68 would not be applicable to share capital and share premium prior to 01.04.2013 as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of M/S Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd 394 ITR 680 (Bom) and thus addition was rightly deleted. 8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials on records, we observe that the assessee has filed all the necessary evidences to prove identification , genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the investors in the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
