TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant could not bring any evidence on record to support his claim regarding the amount received from Loan creditors towards share application money and the rejection of the share capital allotment by the Board. The appellant has also failed to rebut the finding of the authorities below that once, both the depositors were the directors of assessee company, there was no reason to believe that the proposed offer of share capital allotment was withdrawn, for which no evidence is laid on record. The assessee also could not adduce any evidence before us to support its stand that the amount so received from Loan creditors was repaid by way of cheques or the amounts received was mentioned twice by the AO. The cash book submitted was not foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Rs.27,244/- from M/s. Softech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. On being apprised of the fact by the Assessing Officer, the assessee at first instance tried to mislead the AO that the assessee company had not accepted any cash deposit and in support submitted a cash book where there was no mention of receipts of the above amounts. The Assessing Officer treated the said cash book as unauthentic as it was not prepared as per accounting principles. The Assessing Officer also observed in the assessment proceedings that the auditor of the company in column No. 24(a) (b) of Form 3CD, has not reported the details of amounts received and repaid in view of the provisions of section 269SS 269T, whereas the Assessing Officer on scrutiny of accounts found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company. She is a NRI and had agricultural income which is not taxable in India. When the Board of Directors rejected the offer for purchase of shares of the company, then the share application money was returned by cheque No. 87757 and 87755 for Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. No any cash payments have been received from Sh. Anwar Jalil Ahmed Khand the AO has wrongly mentioned the same amount twice received from Mrs. Sofia Praveen Khan as mentioned in the reply of the assessee placed at paper book page 21 22 before us. Therefore, no penalty is leviable against the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i). CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., 285 ITR 221 (Mad.) (ii). CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing any evidence on record to support his claim regarding the amount received from Sofia Praveen Khan towards share application money and the rejection of the share capital allotment by the Board. The appellant has also failed to rebut the finding of the authorities below that once, both the depositors were the directors of assessee company, there was no reason to believe that the proposed offer of share capital allotment was withdrawn, for which no evidence is laid on record. The assessee also could not adduce any evidence before us to support its stand that the amount so received from Sofia Praveen Khan was repaid by way of cheques or the amounts received from Sofia Praveen Khan was mentioned twice by the AO. The cash book submitted was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
