TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f receipts - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) after considering the affidavit of the Managing Director of the company and also the submissions of the AR had observed that there is no doubt about the intentions of the assessee as they had agreed for the addition of 9% of the receipts of the work contract. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to take the profit at 9% of gross receipts and account for the profit already shown in the P L Account, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismiss the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue. We further note that since the Assessee has not filed any Application under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, hence, the question of contravention of Rule 46A does not arise. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 4178/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2017 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Department : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR For the Assessee : Sh. Chander Mehra, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Meeru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot so high to justify having received such high share premium. AO further observed that the assessee company was also not having huge reserves in order to attract premium on shares. Hence, he added the addition u/s. 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee by treating the amount of ₹ 3 crores paid by Approva and Shalinik as bogus and income from undisclosed sources and accordingly, assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 37643740/- u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.12.2011. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.12.2011, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 07.5.2012 has deleted the addition and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 5. On the contrary, Ld. A.R. of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and filed the Synopsis, which read as under:- The additions by the AO are: A. The company received share applications from 1. Apoorva Leasing Finance And Investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit for the same was submitted before the Ld CIT)A) page 145. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the synopsis filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, as aforesaid. We find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed and adjudicated the issue No.1 2 vide para no. 4.3 5.3 at page no. 21-23 and 25-26. The said relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- 4.3 I have gone through the order of the AO and considered the written submissions and arguments of the AR. I have also gone through the case laws referred to by the AO and the A.R. The AO from the records and documents submitted by the assessee, found that the company had received 'share applications from two companies amounting to ₹ 3,00,00,000/- including th,e share premium of ₹ 2,94,00,000/-. She found that the net worth of the assessee company was not so high to justify having received such high share premium. The assessee company was also not having huge reserves in order to attract premium on shares. She tried to visit the premises to have spot enquiry done but found at the addresses given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The number of companies in which the these companies have invested are 253 by Shalini and 21 by Apoorva. These investments made by the companies only for the year under consideration but if the total investments are taken these are much more. Regarding the premium on shares, the AR has informed that these are taken not just on the basis of book value. There are multiple methods by which it is worked out. He further referred to the insertion of new clause in the Finance Bill, 2012, which shall tax the excess valuation other than book value u/s 56(viib) w.e.f 01.04.2013 i.e from the AY. 2013-14. I find that there is no doubt about the identities of the companies. The genuineness of the transaction of the share application is proved by the confirmation and bank account. The confirmations have been submitted and the transaction has been made through Axis Bank vide different cheques and the copy of Bank Account has been furnished. The assessee even furnished before the AO the set of Balance sheet, the copy of acknowledgment of Income Tax Return and the copy of share application, the copy of the Board Resolution for the application for shares. In view of the above facts and vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee company was not so high to justify having received such high share premium. The assessee company was also not having huge reserves in order to attract premium on shares. AO tried to visit the premises to have spot enquiry done but found at the addresses given by the assessee that no company existed on those addresses. The A.O. issued a show cause to the assessee as at the addresses given and found that no company existed. AO received from the A.R. the new addresses on the same day. AO being in doubt issued a commission u/s 131(d) to ACIT Circle-49(1) New Delhi to visit the new addresses. The ACIT visited the new site and as per her report and found that the building was not having any sign board or hording of the companies. AO found there the office of a Company Secretary, Shri Abhimanyu Upadhaya, whose statement was recorded. Shri Upadhaya accepted that the companies were registered from his address as he was the company secretary of those companies. One of the Directors of the investor company Shri Surender Kumar Jain telephoned the ACIT(TDS) and requested to meet her and the date was fixed for 23.12.2011. However, instead of Shri Jain one Shri Bharat Bhushan appeare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e different cheques and the copy of Bank Account has been furnished. The assessee even furnished before the AO the set of Balance sheet, the copy of acknowledgment of Income Tax Return and the copy of share application, the copy of the Board Resolution for the application for shares. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of ClT Vs Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195, as referred by the Ld. AR of the assessee before him and hence, rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 3,00,00,000/-, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the revised ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the ITAT, E Bench, New Delhi decision dated 07.8.2015 passed in the case of Modinagar Rolls Ltd., Modinagar, Ghaziabad vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Ghaziabad in ITA No. 333/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) wherein the Tribunal has treated the transaction of the two firms i.e. M/s Apoorva Leasing Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shalini Holdings Ltd. as genuine, which are involved in the present case also. 7.1 As rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
