9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the "Act"), dated 18.03.2015 for AY 2012-13. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: "1 For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO in adding back the share capital including premium of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- raised during the year from 5 share subscriber companies as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 when all the details and evidences were filed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of the transactions, the AO verified the same by issue of notice u/s 133(6), the onus that lay on the assessee was discharged and the AO simply made the addition on surmises & suspicions without bringing any cogent material on record. 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in doubting the value of sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sr. DR ex parte qua the assessee. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2012 reporting total income of Rs.35,150/-. Statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee in response to which it is noted that assessee had submitted some details. Ld. AO noted that assessee had raised share capital of Rs.3,50,000/- along with share premium of Rs.1,71,50,000/- totalling to Rs.1,75,00,000/- during the year. In order to examine this transaction, Ld. AO issued letters u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all the share subscribing companies. He also issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act to the director of the assessee to appear personally for deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investing in shares. Also assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year. Submissions made by the assessee were forwarded by the Ld. CIT (A) to the AO for furnishing a remand report on the contention raised by the assessee. In the remand report, Ld. AO had justified the addition made in the assessment order. Assessee was given opportunity to furnish a rejoinder which is reproduced in the first appellate order. 5. After considering all these submissions, Ld. CIT (A) arrived at a conclusion that subscriber had simply submitted the documents but did not appear for examination on oath. Further, creditworthiness could not be proved. He thus, found that share subscribing companies are shell entities and are used only to create bogus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
