TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an adverse inference, only if, he would have pointed out the discrepancies or insufficiency in the evidences and details received in his office and pointed out as to on what account further investigation was needed by way of recording of statement of the directors of the subscriber companies. Even if the directors of the subscriber companies have not come personally in response to the summons issued by the AO, in our view, adverse inference cannot be taken against the assessee solely on this ground as it is not under control of the assessee to compel the personal presence of the directors of the shareholders before the AO. Assessee has rightly placed reliance upon the decision of Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. . [ 2017 (11) TMI 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share subscribers. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to para 3 of the impugned assessment order to submit, wherein, the Assessing Officer has noted as under: 3. In compliance to the notices issued u/s 143(2) 142(1), AR of the assessee appeared, filed various details as required, produced books of accounts which were test checked and the case was discussed with him. 4. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that despite specifically noting that the assessee has furnished all the details and evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.7,60,00,000/-from 6 parties. In the course of the assessment proceedings, to verify the receipt of share capital, the AO issued notices u/s.133(6) to all the 6 share applicants and in response, they all confirmed the transactions submitted the details/document in respect of the subscription of shares of the appellant. In the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed copy of each of the assessment orders passed in all the 6 cases of the shareholders for that year in which the share subscription amount has been received by the assessee company. Besides, the income-tax return filing acknowledgment, Audited Balance and sheets as on 31.03.2012, relevant bank, copy of the notices issued u/s 133(6) to the shareholders and rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shareholders are not in doubt. Further, all the share application money was received through banking channels. Therefore, the issue for my consideration now is -whether the share capital of Rs.7,60,00,000/- raised during the year by the appellant can be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act or not. When the identity creditworthiness of the shareholders have been clearly established because all of them were scrutinized u/s 143(3) and thus the source of the share capital and the share premium are clearly established and the transactions have all taken place through banking channels, merely for failure of the directors of the assessee and the shareholders to appear before AO in person in response to the summons is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee company as it would amount to double additions of the same amount. Even if the said addition stand confirmed in the appeal or stand deleted, in both the instances, the investment in the hands of the assessee company will stand proved. Reliance has been placed in this respect on the decision of the Coordinate Kolkata bench of the Tribunal in the case in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Maa Amba Towers Ltd. in ITA No.1381/Kol/2015 vide order dated 12.10.2018. The aforesaid decision has been further relied upon by the coordinate Kolkata bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steelex India (P) Ltd vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kolkata I.T.A. No.2666/Kol/2019 decided vide order dated 09.09. 2022. 7. Further, a perusal of the Assessment order would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iber companies have not come personally in response to the summons issued by the AO, in our view, adverse inference cannot be taken against the assessee solely on this ground as it is not under control of the assessee to compel the personal presence of the directors of the shareholders before the AO.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has rightly placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT, Panji vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2017) 84 taxman.com 58 (Bom) wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of the subscriber companies, the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. Further the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
