9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A), is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,99,75,000/- made ws 68 of the Income Tax Act, as unexplained credit on accounts of sum credited in the books of accounts of the assessee who received share capital and share premium from Javcee Pvt. Lid, without appreciating the fact that the entity did not have required creditworthiness. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company had filed its return of income on 31.03.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 2,84,220/- for the year under consideration. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"]. Later, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2015. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the said party in A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee had submitted complete cheque wise details along with the bank statements of appellant company. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2007-08 i.e. the year of receipt/transfer of share application money wherein the assessee had submitted the relevant details in this regard before the Assessing Officer which was verified and accepted by the then Assessing Officer. Even the party namely M/s. Jaycee Industries Ltd. was summoned to which response was also made. During the course of reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration also, notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said party. In response the said party confirmed the investments being m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming the transaction done with the assessee company. In the year under consideration, the assessee has only allotted shares to the said party and no fresh amount is received from the said party and accordingly, no addition can be made u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. The issue to be decided is whether the addition u/s. 68 of the Act can be made when the assessee has not received any amount from the alleged party in the year under consideration. In this regard, we agree with the findings of the ld. CIT(A), the relevant extract of which is reproduced below: "10.9 As far as Share Application Money of Rs. 1,99,75,000/- from M/Jaycee Industries Limited is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustries Limited, I find that M/s. Jaycee Industries Limited has replied to the notice of the AO. The AO has not given any reason for non-acceptance of details provided by the said company or detailed submissions made by the AO in the assessment proceedings. Once identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions with M/s. Jaycee Industries Limited are established, the onus shifts on the AO and he is required to make specific findings as to why share monies received from the said company should be treated as non-genuine. There is no specific finding related M/s. Jaycee Industries. I find that similar situation exists for seven companies mentioned above. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstance, in my considered view, en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
