TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een shown to have subscribed to huge amounts of shares. The very fact that these shares were not issued by means of public offer shows that the promoters and the directors of the assessee company must know the alleged shares subscribers personally. Despite thus the assessee failed to proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction of the shareholders with the assessee company. Thus it clearly shows that the assessee has not produced the available documents with it before passing the assessment orders and the same is produced which is six years old before CIT(A) as additional documents which cannot be entertained. Perusal of the list of investors and their returned income was between the range of Rs. 1,65,764/- to Rs. 2,60,109/- but they invested ranging from Rs. 56 lakhs to Rs. 84 lakhs. Thus the creditworthiness of these investors are not proved beyond doubt. No hesitation in confirming the orders of the lower authorities and the ground and additional ground raised by the assessee has no merits and the same are dismissed. - ITA No. 805/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2022 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee submitted Income Tax Return acknowledgement number relating to six shareholders only. As the assessee has not provided the details called for and failed to proof the identity of the creditor, capacity to invest the money and also genuineness of the transaction. Therefore A.O. added the sum of Rs. 19,62,80,000/- u/s.68 of the Act and demanded taxes thereon. 3. Aggrieved against this assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Vadodara. The assessee made submission before the Ld. CIT(A) and the same was forwarded to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The A.O. submitted that the four conditions prescribed under Rule 46A does not arise in the present case. In spite of sufficient opportunities given to the assessee, the assessee only furnished incomplete details and thus the assessee failed to produce the details before the assessing officer. Therefore requested not to entertain the additional evidences, during the appellate proceedings. 3.1. The assessee vide its rejoinder submitted that the shareholders were investors of the assessee company, no such details were collected by the assessee at the time of receipt of money. The assessee could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the income of these persons was in the range of Rs. 1,65,764/- to Rs. 2,60,109/- only, whereas the amounts of share application money paid by such persons were ranging from Rs. 56 lakhs to Rs. 84 lakhs. Thus, evidently, the creditworthiness of these persons was not sufficient to subscribe to such high share capital in the appellant company. Besides these persons, in case of other 7 persons the appellant has provided only the copies of consent letter and cheques through which the payment had been made. Again, nothing was provided to prove the identity of these persons and the genuineness of the transactions made with them. So far as the balance alleged share subscribers are concerned, no detail except for their address and name was provided by the appellant before the AO. Thus, it is evident that the appellant has failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers, and the genuineness of the transactions entered with them. 5.5.6. In the last submission made, it has been claimed by the appellant company that it is a widely held company and hence, confirmations were not obtained at the time of obtaining share application money. But, surprisingly, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 4.1. And also raising the Additional Ground of Appeal: 1. That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed in terms of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, even after calling for a Remand Report from the AO. 2. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in relying upon inapplicable case law, as the facts of appellant's case are totally different. 4.2. Ld. Counsel Shri M.K. Patel appearing for the assessee during the course of the hearing submitted that he is not pressing ground no. 1, hence ground no. 1 is dismissed. 4.3. Ground no. 2 is the addition made u/s. 68 and share application money and premium th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us the Ld. CIT(A) has properly rejected the additional documents and therefore the finding of the lower authorities does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Books filed by the assessee. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT/DR, the first show cause notice on 20.12.2012 was issued by the A.O. asking for the details of name, address, PAN, Confirmation, Return of Income and Bank Statement of the share subscribers, to whom the assessee company shares were allotted. The assessee sought for adjournment on various occasions and produced a piecemeal, not the relevant information as called for by the Assessing Officer. In the first occasion, the assessee filed only the details of the shareholders name, address, number of shares and amount of investment, but without furnishing PAN number, copies of Return of Income, confirmation letters and bank statement of the share subscribers. In spite of seven opportunities given to the assessee, the assessee could not produce the details before the Assessing Officer. During the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
