9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .70 lacs on account of purchase of agricultural land and addition of Rs. 5.30 crores on account of unexplained share capital u/s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 made by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal vide his order dated 28.12.2011 passed u/s. 153A of the Act, is confirmed. The assessee has raised following grounds : "1. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has acted arbitrarily and on presumptions basis, contrary to principles of natural justice and provision of law as such the action and findings based thereon stands vitiated and order is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is not justified in confirming an addition of Rs. 5,70,000 on account of excess money paid towards purchase of agriculture land made by Ld AO which is arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and contrary to facts and provision of law and based on surmises and conjectures and hence the addition so made by Ld. A.O. and confirmed by CIT(A) needs to be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is not justified in confirming an addition of Rs. 5,00,41,208 worked out by Ld AO by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the companies. Subsequently, he enquired from the assessee about these transactions confronting these evidences. The assessee replied vide letter dated 30.08.2011, stating that all these companies are assessed to Income Tax and shares have been issued to them. With respect to various documents, the assessee gave an explanation that the documents found are neither incriminating and cannot be imputed with any motive. It was also stated that these are the normal documents at the time of allotment of shares. The assessee also submitted copies of bank statements, copies of the accounts of the investors, addresses of the companies, their PAN, list of directors etc. to show that identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions are established. He further relied upon several decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as Supreme Court. 5.2 The Assessing Officer examined the explanation of the assessee and stated that the corroborative evidence found of these companies are suspected to be accommodation entries. He further held that on perusal of the bank statement, there are credit entries just before the transfer of money to the assessee company. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ES (P) LTD., 13935 07-10-2008 2500000 25000 2250000 11 VIP LEASING & FINANCE (P) LTD 128087 07-10-2008 2500000 25000 2250000 12 SRI AMARNATH FINANCE LTD 265380 22-10-2008 2100000 21000 1890000 13 VAIRAVI ELECTRICAL (P) LTD., 420115 16-10-2008 2500000 25000 2250000 14 ALISHAN COMPLEX (P) LTD., 417500 13-10-2008 2500000 25000 2250000 15 CRM SYSTEMS (P) LTD 419979 16- 10- 2008 2500000 25000 2250000 16 MARUBHUMI FINANCE a DEVELOPERS (P) , LTD. 418140 13-10-2008 2500000 25000 2250000 17 MAHASHAKTI COMMODITIES P. LTD 420329 13-10-2008 2500000 25000 2250000 18 APOORVA LEASING FINANCE a INVESTMENT CO LTD., 16526 29-10-2008 3000000 30000 2700000 19 ALISHAN COMPLEX P. LTD 417633 15-10-2008 2500000 25000 2250000 20 SPARSH HOTEL (P) LTD., 418525 13-10-2008 2500000 25000 2250000 21 SATABADl JUTE (P} ' LTD ., 418418 15-10-2008 2500000 25000 7250000 TOTAL 53000000 530000 47700000 5.1 The perusal of the above details reveal that the assessee has received share premium from above companies. Certain documents were found and seized from the residence of the assessee co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any to refund the amounts already invested. These investing companies were asked to submit specific documents which included a request for purchase of shares, the share certificate in original, duly executed transfer deed, and pre receipts of the sums. However on account of disagreement regarding issue relating to amount to be refunded, and non submission of original share certificates the documents were kept pending and the investors were required to submit original share certificates as well as pre receipts for sums agreed between both the parties. These documents werereceived some time in the last week of June, 2009 and were kept pending for their final disposal as per provisions of law. However in the mean time the search took place at the premises of the companies and these documents were seized before they could actuary be executed." 5.4 The assessee vide its reply also filed copies of bank statements, copies of accounts of the investors, complete addresses of the companies, their PAN and list of Directors and master data and details of signatories in order to prove the existence of the companies who had invested in the assessee company M/s Goel International Pvt, Ltd. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and seized from the premises of the assessee company, are as per the following details; Sr.No Description of the documents Annexure No. 1. Memorandum and Articles of Association Annexure A-3; A-6, A-7, A-93 A10, A-11, A-12, A-13 & A-14 2. Bank statements -Do- 3. Blank share transfer forms -Do- 4 Blank special power of attorneys in original signed by the authorized signatory -Do- 5. Affidavits by Director of the concerned companies stating therein that their company has applied for equity shares of M/s Goel International Pvt. Ltd -Do- 6. Blank' receipts against the shares held by the company in M/s Goel International Pvt. Ltd. signed by the Director of company. -Do- ii) The perusal of the bank statements revealed that before the date of transfer of share application money / share premium , there was a deposit / transfer of entries in these bank accounts .Such transfer entries only indicated that the assessee firm had arranged the accommodation entries. Moreover, the other documents like blank share transfer form found during the search further corroborates to .this finding that these were nothing but arrangement of accommodation entries in the for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms. However on account of disagreement regarding issue relating to amount to be refunded, and non submission of original share certificates the documents were kept pending and the investors were required to submit original share . certificates as well as pre receipts for sums agreed betweenboth the parties. These documents were received ,some time in the last week of June, 2009 and were kept pending for their final disposal as per provisions of law." The above submission cannot be accepted since if there was any deal between the assessee company and company which introduce share capital to refund the shares after three years at a premium of 25%, then the assessee company should have produced any documentary evidence in the shape of any agreement between assessee and other companies. In the absence of any documentary evidence produced by the assessee, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. Secondly, the submissions of the assessee that there was also disagreement between the assessee and other companies and therefore, the blank share transfer form were retained is only an afterthought made by the assessee. If that be the case, the assessee should have stated the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and submitted share application money." But, in the case under consideration, the assessee has failed to discharge such onus. Hence, an amount of Rs. 5,30,00,000/- introduced by the assessee as share capital is treated as unexplained income of the assessee However, the assessee has disclosed Rs. 7.50 Cr on account of peak investment in Diaries as mentioned in para no 4.3 of this order whereas the actual peak works out to Rs. 7,20,41,208/- due to which there is a difference of Rs. 29, 58,792/-. This difference is liable to be adjusted from the above addition of Rs. 5.30O which comes to Rs. 5,00,41,208/- which, is added to the taxable income of the assessee. Further, I am satisfied that the assessee is liable for penalty in terms of section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, and accordingly penalty proceedings are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 5,00,41,208/-)" The assessee, aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition holding as under : "6.2. The issue has been dealt at length at para 5 and 6 of the impugned order. It transpires that during the year assessee had introduced Rs. 5,30,00,000/- as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts by director of the concerned companies stating therein that their company has applied for equity shares of M/s. Goel International Pvt. Ltd. -do- 6 Blank receipts against the share held by the company in M/s. Goel International Pvt. Ltd. Signed by the director of company -do- I also find that the assessee was also confronted with the nature of the documents. In reply to which assessee filed copies of bank statements, copies of accounts of the investors, complete addresses of the companies, their PAN and list of Directors, masterdata and details of signatories to prove the existence of the companies. On a further perusal of the very crucial documents seized from the residential premises of the assessee, it further suggests that in the bank statements of the investing companies, there were deposits/transfer entries in the bank accounts. Further blank share transfer forms were also found at the assessee's premises. The addresses of the Directors of the some of the companies were also the same, apart from common addresses of the companies. Significantly, the serial nos. in some of the stamp papers of selling shares were observed to be even earlier than the purchases by the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the decision of Guwahati High court in the case of M/s. Greenview Restaurant vs. ACIT, 263 ITR 169." 5.3 However, the ld. CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal also sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, which is as under : "Kindly find enclosed herewith the submission made by the Assessing Officer on the above cited subject. It may kindly be noted that the assessment order is silent on the summon issued u/s 131 of the I. T. Act to the companies on the alleged share application money because of the fact that the evidences gathered during the course of search in the form of Annexure A-3, A-6, A-7, A-9 to A-14 seized during the course of search established that the assessee company had taken accommodation entries from various companies whose details have been given in the Assessment Order Para 5.6 are reproduced for your kind perusal. " Perusal of the reply of the assessee, the case laws relied upon, the documents filed in support of its contention and all the other supporting documents filed during the course of assessment proceedings has been made and after verification of the same, it has emerged that the contentions of the assessee have no force at all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the seized documents that the stamp paper is dated 2009 whereas the contents of the stamp paper say that the document belongs to 2008. vi) Details of the above companies which have invested in M/s Goel International Pvt. Ltd. have been cross checked from the website of Ministry of Corporate affairs and it is seen that in case of some companies ,the addresses mentioned on the website is different from the address mentioned in the returns/affidavits. Also in case of companies based in Kolkata , the email-ids of all the companies are same. vi) Regarding the purpose of maintenance of blank share transfer form at the residence of the Director of the assessee, the assessee has stated the following:- "As a part of the deal, it was offered to the investing companies that at the end of the tenure of 3 years the same would be refunded to them at a premium of 25% with an option to repurchase at any time. However on account of change in the business plan of the investors and their inability to retain investment, negotiations were made with our company to refund the amounts already invested. These investing companies were asked to submit specific documents which included a request f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Lovely Exports is different from that in the instant case since the company Lovely Exports is a Public limited company and the assessee company is a Private company". It may kindly be also noted that during the course of the statement recorded u/s 132(4), Shri Vijay Goyal one of the Director of the company had already surrendered the share application money before the Income Tax Authorities as his own money. In this regard, para 6.2 "his statement recorded on 29.07.2009 may kindly be seen". Para 6.2 and 6.3 of the assessment order have reproduced the statement of Shri Vijay Goyal in this regard. As regard to the statement given u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, the AO has also relied upon the various judgments like i) Hira Lal Madan Lal & Co Vs. Dy. CIT (2005) 96ITD 113, II) V.K. Kunhamber Vs. CIT (1996) 219ITR 235 (Ker.), iii) DCIT Vs. BhogilalaMalchand 96 ITD 344 [Ahmadabad Bench] and iv) Green View Restaurant Vs. ACIT 263 ITR 169 [High Court of Gauhati]. The assessee has failed to provide any such evidence which supports that the statement u/s 132(4) was given under stress / undue pressure or by coercion. Further no retraction of the statement was made either before the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns c) Creditworthiness: -Copy of Bank statement showing source of payment. -No cash deposited in bank to make payment. -Copy of Audited Balance Sheet on 31.03.2009 showing Net Worth of company. -Copy of ITR 2 Euro Asia Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.,3198/15, 4th Floor, Gali No. 1, Sangatrashan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 a) Identity: -Summon duly served in said address -Copy of ITR for A.Y.2009-10 -Copy of Bank statement b) Genuineness of transactions:- -Bank statement showing that payment through account payee cheques. -No cash deposited in bank to make payment - Confirmation confirming the transactions c) Creditworthiness : -Copy of Bank statement showing source of payment. -No cash deposited in bank to make payment. -Copy of Audited Balance Sheet on 31.03.2009 showing Net Worth of company. -Copy of ITR 3 Apoorva Leasing Fin. & Investment Co. Ltd., 104-A, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110055. a) Identity: -Summon duly served in said address -Copy of ITR for A.Y.2009-10 -Copy of Bank statement Copy of Memorandum b) Genuineness of transactions:- -Bank statement showing that payment through account payee cheques. -No cash deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentity: -Summon duly served in said address - Copy of ITR for A.Y.2009-10 Copy of Bank statement b) Genuineness of transactions:- -Bank statement showing that payment through account payee cheques. -No cash deposited in bank to make payment -Confirmation confirming the transactions c) Creditworthiness: -Copy of Bank statement showing source of payment. -No cash deposited in bank to make payment. -Copy of Audited Balance Sheet on 31.03.2009 showing Net Worth of company. -Copy of ITR -Copy of Assessment Order U/s 143(3) 8 Ad-Fin Capital Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., 209, Bhanot Plaza, 3, D.B.Gupta Road, New Delhi-110055. a) Identity: -Summon duly served in said address -Copy of ITR for A.Y.2009-10 -Copy of Bank statement b) Genuineness of transactions:- -Bank statement showing that payment through account payee cheques. -No cash deposited in bank to make payment -Confirmation confirming the transactions c) Creditworthiness: -Copy of Bank statement showing source of payment. -No cash deposited in bank to make payment. -Copy of Audited Balance Sheet on 31.03.2009 showing Net Worth of company. -Copy of ITR 9 Shalini Holdings Ltd. , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment. - No cash deposited in bank to make payment. -Copy of Audited Balance Sheet on 31.03.2009 showing Net Worth of company. -Copy of ITR 13 Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., 3198/15, 4th Floor, Gali No. 1, Sangatrashan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi110055 a) Identity: -Summon duly served in said address -Copy of ITR forA.Y.2009-10 -Copy of Bank statement -Copy of Memorandum b) Genuineness of transactions:- -Bank statement showing that payment through account payee cheques. -No cash deposited in bank to make payment -Confirmation confirming the transactions c) Creditworthiness : -Copy of Bank statement showing source of payment. -No cash deposited in bank to make payment. - Copy of Audited Balance Sheet on 31.03.2009 showing Net Worth of company. -Copy of ITR Ld AO independently verified the genuineness of share capital raised by issuing summon u/s 131 to share applicant which were duly served and complied to and the fact has been admitted by Ld AO in his remand report dated 17.12.2012. ii). Further, it is evident that no cash is deposited in any of the bank account of share applicant to subscribe to share capital of the assessee company. iii). Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel & Alloys 361 ITR 220 (Del) 6. Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 71 of 2015 dated 12.08.2015 (Del) 7. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 169 of 2017 dated 14.03.2017 (Del). 8. Peoples General Hospital 356 ITR 65 (MP) 9. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Del). 10. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. 330 ITR 603 (Del) 11. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Del) 12. NC Cable Ltd. 391 ITR 11 (Del) 13. Softline Creation Pvt. Ltd. 387 ITR 636 (Del) 14. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. 361 ITR 10 (Del) 6.1 The ld. AR further submitted a detailed chart at paper book page 1070 to 1072 wherein, it is submitted that each of the company has huge share capital, reserves and surplus and genuine turnover, which itself proves that all these companies are not paper companies. The said chart is reproduced hereunder. He further submitted that the amount invested with the assessee is much less than the net worth of the subscribing companies. It was further stated that each of these companies are regularly assessed to Income-tax, stating their PAN and assessment wards where they are filing their return of income. In view of this, he submitted that the all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., 311, 3rd Floor, Golden Plaza, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 AABCH6626F 12(1) 19,460,000 174,277,448 19,460,000 174,257,968 528,365 237,780 TOTAL 193,737,448 169,747,000 528,365 237,780 8. Lotus Realcon Pvt. Ltd., 209, Bhanot PlazaII, 3 D.B. Gupta, Road, New Delhi 110005 AABCL3054H 4(4) 17,240,000 154,292,740 17,240,000 154,274,258 573,900 292,065 TOTAL 171,532,740 171,514,258 573,900 292,065 9. Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., 3198/15, 4th floor, Gali No. 1, Sangatrashan, Parah ganj, New Delhi 110008 AACCV4613R 17(1) 19,230,000 172,198,439 19,230,000 172,188,620 419,412 249,210 TOTAL 191,428,439 191,418,620 419,412 249,210 10. Virgin Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., T-10, Main Patel Road, Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 AAACV3093R 17(4) 19,788,120 160,560,000 19,788,120 160,560,000 513,530 300,070 11 . VIP Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. AAACV0475F 17(1) 19,354,900 152,100,000 19,354,900 152,100,000 499,136 319,088 TOTAL 171,454,900 171,454,900 499,136 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the ld. Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer could not point out any error or infirmity in the balance sheets of those companies to support the allegations that these are paper companies. He submitted that in case of all the companies, summons were issued to them and all the companies were found existing at the addresses given to the Assessing Officer. He stated that if there would have been any discrepancy in the addresses, summons could not have been received by these parties. He further stated that all the summons were duly complied with by the investor companies by providing necessary details, which is not disputed by the lower authorities. 6.4 He further stated that the assessee has submitted complete bank accounts of the parties. However, the Assessing Officer could not point out a single instance wherein the cash is deposited in the account of those companies. 6.5 He further stated that merely because some of the companies have same addresses, cannot be the reason for making the addition. He further stated that merely because they have common directors also do not go against the assessee. 6.6 He further stated that the allegation of the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied very heavily on the order of the ld. Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) to state that the assessee has failed miserably to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. 8. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, search took place on 07.07.2009, which concluded on 08.07.2009. Admittedly, the assessee or any of its directors did not make any statement u/s. 132(4) of the IT Act. On 07.07.2009, a letter was addressed by Shri Vijay Goel to the Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv.), surrendering a sum of Rs. 27 crores. Further, on 14.07.2009, the assessee submitted a letter giving bifurcation of the above sum. The assessee time to time has submitted even during the course of search as well as post search enquiries that the documents shall be explained in detail during the course of assessment proceedings. Admittedly, during the year, the assessee has issued a share capital of face value of Rs. 5.30 crores at a premium of Rs. 4.77 lacs to 21 companies. The share considerations have been received by cheques in the month of October, 2008 from the bank acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r companies which have not been done. The bank accounts of the companies, therefore, do not lead to any inference that the investment made by these companies is accommodation entry in the hands of the assessee. 9.3 The next documents are affidavits of the directors of investor companies, stating that their company has applied for equity shares. This itself is a statement that the investment has been made by those companies. These affidavits were not found either bogus, sworn by different persons other than the directors of the companies nor disclosed anything else other than that declared in the accounts of the companies and these affidavits are, in fact, supporting the transactions. If the Assessing Officer had any doubt on the affidavits, he should have either called on the persons who have sworn such affidavits or the Notaries who have notarized such affidavits. Even otherwise, what is stated in the books of investor companies has been stated by the directors of these companies on affidavit. We do not find any reason that merely because the directors of the depositor companies have prepared affidavit, it becomes an accommodation entry. Most of the times, to establish cash credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of income and source of such income. They should have been further enquired about the purpose of making investment and fate of their investment as on today. But to utter dismay, the ld. Assessing Officer has slept over the information submitted by the assessee and merely raised assumptions and presumptions. The addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer has become unsustainable in the hands of the assessee due to lack of enquiry or any efforts on the part of the AO. In this regard, we are also constrained to refer the amendment made to the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act by Finance Act, 2012 by inserting a proviso w.e.f. 01.04.2013 that additional burden has been cast on the assessee to prove in the similar circumstances, if no explanation is offered by the investor or such explanation offered by the investor is not satisfactory. However, our hands are tied, as the impugned assessment years before us are assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. It is also not argued before us that this proviso is retrospective in nature. Therefore, it is apparent that prior to assessment year 2013-14, the onus of explaining the transaction cannot be expanded in the hands of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he deletion of addition with respect to the share subscribers, M/s. Creative Financial Services Pvt. Ltd." 8. Learned counsel for the Revenue highlighted that the Assessing Officer examined all the materials in great detail and rejected the affidavit furnished to him. It was highlighted that the Assessing Officer took note of the statement made by the individual styled as director, disowning the investment made in the assessee-company by M/s. Creative Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 9. This court is of the opinion that the lone circumstance of a director disowning the document per se could not have constituted a fresh material to reject the documentary evidence. In this case, the existence of the company as an Income-tax assessee, and that it had furnished audited accounts is not in dispute. Furthermore, its bank details too were furnished to the Assessing Officer. If the Assessing Officer were to conduct his task diligently, he ought to have at least sought the material by way of bank statements, etc., to discern whether in fact the amounts were infused into the shareholder's account in cash at any point of time or that the amount of Rs. 1.3 crores âEUR" in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., 299 ITR 268, in which it was held as under : "No adverse inference should be drawn if shareholders ailed to respond to the notice by A.O. " viii. Decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Peoples General Hospital Ltd., (2013) 356 ITR 65, in which it was held as under : "Dismissing the appeals, that if the assessee had received subscriptions to the public or rights issue through banking channels and furnished complete details of the shareholders, no addition could be made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the absence of any positive material or evidence to indicate that the shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons or that any part of the share capital represented the company's own income from undisclosed sources. It was nobody's case that the non-resident Indian company was a bogus or non-existent company or that the amount subscribed by the company by way of share subscription was in fact the money of the assessee. The assessee had established the identity of the investor who had provided the share subscription and that the transaction wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) as it was also of the opinion that the assessee had been able to prove the identity of the share applicants and the share application money had been received by way of account payee cheques. On appeal to the High Court: Held, dismissing the appeals, that the deletion of addition was justified." x. Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd., 330 ITR 603, in which it was held as under : "Dismissing the appeal, that it had not been disputed that the share application money was received by the assessee-company by way of account payee cheques, through normal banking channels. Admittedly, copies of application for allotment of shares were also provided to the Assessing Officer. Since the applicant companies were duly incorporated, were issued PAN cards and had bank accounts from which money was transferred to the assessee by way of account payee cheques, they could not be said to be non-existent, even if they, after submitting the share applications had changed their addresses or had stopped functioning. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the genuineness of the transactions had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee with respect to 21 companies of Rs. 5.30 crores cannot be sustained. 11. The remaining issue involved in this appeal is with respect to addition of Rs. 5,70,000/- on account of excess money paid towards purchase of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer has treated this amount as undisclosed income of the assessee. Apart from ground No. 2, challenging the above addition, the assessee has also taken an alternate ground No.4 agitating that the ld. Authorities below are not justified in not giving credit of surplus amount of surrendered income of Rs. 29,58,792/- against addition of Rs. 5,70,000/- made on account of excess money paid towards purchase of agriculture land. The ld. AR of the assessee has laid much emphasis on the alternate ground of appeal. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has reiterated the findings reached by ld. Authorities below. 12. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- on account of peak investment of diaries seized during the course of search, which stood accepted by the Revenue authorities as business income of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition made by him needs to be deleted." Grounds in ITA No. 1453/Del./2013: "1. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has acted arbitrarily and on presumptions basis, contrary to principles of natural justice and provision of law as such the action and findings based thereon stands vitiated and order is bad in law. 2. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not holding that notice u/s. 153A issued by Ld AO is misconceived and illegal being without jurisdiction, contrary to facts and provision of law and hence the assessment based thereon must be quashed as erroneous and void. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- U/s 68 on account of share capital subscribed by one company incorporated under the companies act made by Ld AO which is based on surmises and conjectures, against principles of natural justice and contrary to facts and provision of law and hence the addition so made by Ld. A.O. and confirmed by CIT(A) needs to be deleted. 4. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not holding that the Ld. AO is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
