TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of purchase of equity stake in the respondent/assessee company. The said investor, as per the findings of fact returned by the Tribunal, had purchased 2,63,783 equity shares of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.175/- per share. The source of funds was the investor s salary, who is also a Director in the respondent / assessee company, amounting to Rs 24 lakhs, while the balance amount was secured by him via unsecured loans amounting to Rs 4,78,00,000/-. The above extract from the Tribunal s order,lists out the eight companies from which unsecured loans were received. Clearly, the respondent/assessee had furnished the documents to establish that it was a genuine transaction where the companies which provided unsecur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication. 3. The delay in re-filing the appeal is, accordingly, condoned. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 558/2022 5. This appeal is directed against order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the Tribunal ] concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 6. In short, the issue which arises for consideration, even according to Mr Zoheb Hossain, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, is whether or not the Assessing Officer (AO) was right in making addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ], with regard to unexplained credits in the books of account. The unexplained credits in the books of account concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has received unexplained credit in its books of account. We find the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition, the reasons of which was already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. 29. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. First of all the assessee in the instant case has received the share capital and share premium from one Mr. Taranpal Singh Kandhari, one of the shareholder and not a number of companies. We find the assesse during the course of assessment proceedings had filed the following documents to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction. a) Form P AS-3 filed before ROC. b) Confirmation from the investor. c) Stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s G.C. Bhalla Sons (HUF) 93,00,000 Total 4,78,00,000 29.2 We find the assessee while explaining the capacity of loan creditors who had given unsecured loan of Rs 4,78,00,000/- to Mr. Taranpal Singh Kandhari had filed the following details: i) Extracts from MCA. ii) Confirmation from lenders. iii) Bank statements of lenders showing payment towards loan. iv) Copy of PAN Card of lenders. v) Copy of Acknowledgement of income tax return filed for the AY 2015-16 by lenders along with the copy of Audited financial statements for the year ended 31- 03-2015. 29.3. A perusal of the details filed by the assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not only prove the source but the source of the source. We, therefore, hold that addition could not have been made on this issue also. 29.6. So far as the allegation of the A.O. that the investor was not produced by the assessee group is concerned, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the A.O. never asked the assessee to produce any investor, could not be controverted by the Ld. D.R. The assessee filed the requisite details in response to summon under Section 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the order nowhere speaks that the A.O. had asked the assessee to produce the investor. 9. The aforesaid findings of fact would show that in this case, there was one investor, i.e. Mr Taran Pal Singh Kandhari who had invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
