TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness of the transaction has not been proved. Assessee is trying to take shelter on the ground that share capital against the said share application money was allowed in AY 2014-15 and the same was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, addition could not be made for AY 2012-13 in which the said sum is received. We, however, fail to find any merit in this plea taken by the assessee in the grounds of appeal and are of the considered view that since the alleged sum was received during the year, AO was justified in asking the assessee to explain the source of said sum and since the assessee failed to file any documentary evidences and discharge the primary onus casted upon it and could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer is bad in law and on facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 1,10,00,000/- on account of share application money received during this assessment year, in spite of having noted that the said amount has been allowed as share capital allotted in A.Y. 2014-15, assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds or amend or alter any of the foregoing grounds before on at the time of the Appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company. Income of Rs. NIL declared in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records placed before us. Addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share application money of Rs. 1.10 Cr is in challenge before us. The contention of the assessee as discernible from the statement of facts and the grounds raised by the assessee is that a sum of Rs. 1.10 Cr was received during the year as share application money u/s 68 of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this addition observing that the assessee is unable to explain the source of the said sum. Relevant extract from the finding of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below: The Standard Procedure issued by CBDT makes it clear that section 68 would apply only to credits in the books of account of the appellant in the relevant year. Section 68 would not operate in credits found in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: 79[Provided that] where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless- (a) the person, being a resident in whose name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction has not been proved. 12. The assessee is trying to take shelter on the ground that share capital against the said share application money was allowed in AY 2014-15 and the same was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, addition could not be made for AY 2012-13 in which the said sum is received. We, however, fail to find any merit in this plea taken by the assessee in the grounds of appeal and are of the considered view that since the alleged sum was received during the year, ld. AO was justified in asking the assessee to explain the source of said sum and since the assessee failed to file any documentary evidences and discharge the primary onus casted upon it and could not explain the source of said sum, provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
