9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was incorrect? 2. Whether Ld. CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.45,900,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained credit under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961." 3. The assessee has filed its return of income on 8th September, 2004 declaring business loss of Rs. 11,03,2002/- as well s income of Rs. 70,70,033/- u/s. 115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said return was selected for scrutiny. The AO has issued a detailed questionnaire. In response thereto, the assessee has filed detailed reply vide letter dated 6th December, 2006 thereby assessee submitted all the details including the details of the share application money received during the year along with confirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds. The CIT(A) quashed the reopening and accordingly upheld the contention of the assessee that reopening is bad. 8. The DR submitted that the assessee has received cheques amounting to Rs. 45,00,000/- through transactions, where in fact no real transactions took place. The genuineness and creditworthiness of the persons giving capital to the assessee was not proved and the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the person who claimed to be the shareholder of the assessee company. The DR totally relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. The DR submitted that the re-opening was proper. The DR further submitted that the assessee's case is governed by Hon'ble Supreme Court case Navodaya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Del) wherein again the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the initial burden is upon the assessee to show the genuineness of the identity of the individuals or entities which seek to subscribe to its share capital. 9. The AR submitted that the assessee has given details of share application money raised during the year along with confirmation and documentary evidence therefore the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the matter under Section 148. (Pg. 26 point 8 of the Paper Book). The AR further submitted that the case of Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) will not be applicable as in the present case the assessee has discharged the burden of proof by submitting the documentary evidence at the time of original assessment. Simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
