9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s. 68 on account of share application money ignoring the well settled law and brushing aside the submissions & evidences of the assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified while upholding the addition of Rs. 11,50,000/- under section 68 totally ignoring the factual matrix and without considering or commenting upon confirmation filed by the assessee and payment of interest after TDS compliance. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,59,500/- paid as interest on the unsecured loans and ignoring the fact that TDS on the interest paid was deducted and the creditors had disclosed it as their inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s through which these have been claimed to have been paid and copy of bank account of the assessee company in which these have been deposited have been furnished. These documents and information do not explain the investment claimed to have been made by these persons. In this way the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- has remained unexplained. Since the assessee has not furnished any information regarding the source of this credit to share capital, it is liable to be deemed to be the income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- is deemed to be the income of the assessee and added to its income." 2. Unexplained Unsecured Loans of Rs. 11,50,000/-:- "As per information furnished, during the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish the required evidences to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to the share capital, share premium as well as relating to the unsecured loans and interest paid thereupon, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the above said order of the CIT(A) the assessee has come in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, has submitted that assessee had received Rs. 30 lakhs from M/s. Balvindera Paper Mills and Rs. 20 lakhs from Shri Teja Singh through cheques as share application money. The bank statements of the assessee company were placed on the assessment records depicting the credit ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est TDS was not applicable. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that during the period, when the assessment proceedings were pending in the case, the Directors of the Company were under depression due to recovery proceedings initiated by their Bankers viz. Bank of India. The said company had raised loan of Rs. 30 Crores from Bank of India as Cash Credit Limit and equal amount of Rs. 30 Crs., was being availed as Cash Credit against book debts, against stocks, book debts and immovable properties of the directors of the company. The Bank account of the Company was declared NPA as on 27-01-2014; and as on 1-06-2014 liability of the Company towards loan amount and unpaid interest was computed at Rs. 39.44 Crs. Proceedings were initiated agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of M/s. Balvindera Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. relating to investment of Rs. 30,00,000/- for purchase of shares of the assessee company. The Ld. counsel has further submitted that the assessee also had provided details of Bank Accounts, PANs, addresses of the aforesaid parties during penalty proceedings. In this regard notices for recovery of outstanding dues, issued by the Bank were also brought to the notice of the Ld. AO. However, the Ld. Assessing officer during penalty proceedings had ignored all these evidence furnished by the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved has filed an appeal against the penalty levied by the Assessing officer before the Ld. CIT(A). 9. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant company may not have been able to discharge its onus in substantiating its claim in the assessment and the subsequent appellate proceedings but that per se would not mean that the appellant was proved to have acted contumaciously in making a claim which was non-genuine or bogus or fake........." 10. The Ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that the assessee was prevented because of the aforesaid reasons in producing the relevant evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to the share capital, share premium as well as unexplained loans. However, the assessee has been able to produce the relevant evidences which have been duly considered in the appellate proceedings relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
