9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital Rs. 8,99,00,000/- and also received Rs. 99,00,000/- as share application money. The assessee was asked vide questionnaire u/s 142(1) dated 28/05/2009 to submit details of capital introduced during the year. Further, the assessee vide order sheet dated 21/12/2009 was asked to submit details of share capital, share application money, addition thereto and sources thereof. Further, the assessee was asked to establish the creditworthiness of the lenders by furnishing the bank statement and sources of their income. Also the assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the transactions. In response to above, the assessee has submitted the confirmation from shareholders, and. copies of shares certificates. 3. Being not satisfied with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion that the appellant has failed to prove the creditworthiness of such shareholders. As their creditworthiness is not proved, the genuineness of the transactions cannot be said to be proved. Therefore, the appellant being a Private Limited Company, the amount of share capital being received broadly from common group of persons, it is held that the appellant has not discharged his onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of such shareholders as stipulated u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, addition of Rs. 8,99,00,000/- crores is confirmed." 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee raised following grounds before us :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and not justified in treating Share Capital of Rs. 8,99,00,000 as unexplained credit and adding it to the Appellant Company's Total Income despite the fact that Appellant Company has furnished every possible document as to the identity and creditworthiness of the each and every Shareholder and genuineness of each and every transaction with all the Shareholders. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that the CIT(A) has called for remand report from the Assessing Officer with regard to the issue of notice u/s 143(2) within the stipu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2008 and dispatch the same on the address given by the appellant in his PAN. Prima facie there was nothing wrong on the part of the AO for issuing the notice on the PAN address and, therefore, as far as issue of notice was concerned, there cannot be any dispute. As regard the service of notice, it is noticed that the AO has dispatched the notice and this fact is evident from the dispatch register. In fact, on the date 25.07.2008 the notice was dispatched by way of entry no. 1 028. It is also seen that on this date not only this notice was dispatched to the appellant but similar notices were issued and dispatched to other assessee's The dispatch register is definitely an important internal authentic document of the department and dispatch o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appellate order with regard to issue and dispatch of notices, on the said address given by the assessee in its PAN application has not been controverted by ld. Authorized Representative by brining any positive material on record. Since assessee was in actual receipt of intimation u/s 143(1) and also refund order which was encashed by assessee in its bank account, there is no reason for accepting assessee's contention for non-service of notice u/s 143(2) on the very same address. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the lower authorities with regard to dispatch and service of notice by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) within the stipulated time. Accordingly, ground no. 2 taken by the assessee wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has given reasonable opportunity for filing of such evidence for proving the facts in his favour, which the assessee failed, therefore, additional evidences were rejected u/s Rule 46A. As per our considered view, the additional evidences produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) goes to the root of the issue for deciding the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in respect of share application money. In the interest of justice, we accept the additional evidence filed by the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh after taking into account the additional evidence as well as evidence filed by the assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings for deciding the issue with respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
