TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the group companies having a common director namely Shri Raj Kumar Gupta. We note that all these verifiable facts have been duly considered by the CIT(A) and has granted relief after his due verification and examination - we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) who upheld the deletion of addition made by the Ld. AO - Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.1971/Kol/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-10-2022 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT Respondent by : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukha, FCA ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion.. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return on 03.10.2012 reporting total income at Rs.37,010/-. In the course of assessment, Ld. AO noted from the perusal of Balance Sheet of the assessee that during the year assessee has received share application money and share premium totaling to Rs.2,21,00,000/- for which assessee had issued 27,625 shares having face value of Rs.10/- each with premium of Rs.790/- per share. For the purpose of verifying the genuineness of this transaction and to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders of the assessee company, Ld. AO issued two summons u/s. 131 of the Act dated 23.02.2015 to the directors of the assessee company who were asked to appear personally and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21,00,000/- and the balance of Rs.3,00,000/- was returned during the FY 2010-11 and Rs.1,00,000/- was returned during the FY 2011-12. 4.1. To corroborate the submissions made assessee placed on record the following documents: (i) Share allotment advice, (ii) Copy of mutual agreement between two companies, (iii) Copy of Income Tax Return Acknowledgment for AY 2012- 13, (iv) Copy of audited financial statement for the year ended on 31.03.2012. (v) Copy of Master Data Status available in MCA Portal. 4.2. It was further contended that Ld. AO has never asked the directors of the assessee to produce the directors of the shareholding company claimed as per the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act dated 23.02.2015. The said summo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2013 and is held to be effective from 01.04.2013 i.e. from AY 2013-14 and the year under consideration is AY 2012-13. 4.4. Ld. CIT(A) concluded after considering the submissions made by the assessee and the documents and records furnished during the course of first appellate proceeding as well as perusal of the assessment order that addition has been made u/s. 68 of the Act on two major accounts i.e. (i) non-production of directors of the shareholder company and (ii) no justification supplied by the assessee regarding issue of share at a high premium. After considering the facts on record, Ld. CIT(A) noted that there has been no fresh credit entry made in the books of account of the concerned period of the assessee in respect of any su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the assessee. 6. Ld. Sr. DR contended that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition in respect of share application money and premium. He submitted that credit in the particular account books is a fresh credit for which assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of shareholders and the genuineness of transaction. He submitted that there is a change in the shareholding pattern when compared from the preceding year with the year under consideration to demonstrate that these are bogus transactions where such companies resort to shifting of shareholding at regular intervals from person to person. He also submitted that assessee has failed to produce the directors of the shareholder company which also demonstrate that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions, carefully perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had received advance from M/s. Ram Kumar Rajendra Kumar Co. Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.2.25 Cr. in the FY 2008-09 duly reported in its audited financial statements placed on record. Assessee has issued its equity shares to the said company against capitalizing the advance of Rs.2,21,00,000/- in the year under consideration and has returned the balance of Rs. 4 lakh. It is also noted from the perusal of the two summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act dated 23.02.2015 that there was no such requirement from the ld. AO to produce the director of the shareholder companies. It was only the director of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
