9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40/- each for which apparently there is no justification. The company’s balance sheet and other particulars have not been furnished before us from where it can be adduced that the companies shares can command so much of premium. CIT(A) has not touched upon this aspect, thus the matter needs to be remitted to the files of the AO, to enable the assessee to furnish cogent evidences to prove the justification of such huge share premium being received by the assessee company - in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 2005/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2012 - SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Assessee by : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Department by : M rs. Shumana Sen, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir ITR acknowledgement and copy of their certificate of incorporation. To examine the genuineness of the cash credit notices u/s. 133(6) were sent to all the capital introducers and in case of the following creditors, the notices were received back since these persons were not found in the given addresses. i) Hercules Ebuilders (Coimbatore) Pvt. Ltd. 221, New Siddhapudur, Coimbatore. ii) Metalcity Constructions Kovai Pvt. Ltd., 221, New Siddhapudur, Coimbatore. iii) Texcity Constructions Kovai Pvt. Ltd. 221, New Siddhapudur, Coimbatore. iv) Cee Aar Decors Pvt. Ltd., 1510/11, Shivashram, S.P. Mukerji Marg, Delhi 6. 3.1 Assessing Officer further noted that the amount from four parties has been given from the same branch of UTI B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstantial evidences, the genuineness of transactions of these credits is also doubt worthy. Therefore, these creditors are concluded to be non genuine and therefore, these cash credits are added to the income of the assessee. 4. Upon assessee s Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that assessee has provided necessary details including the ward circle, where the share applicants were assessed to income tax and discharged the onus cast on it. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to dispute the fact/details furnished by the assessee despite conducting the independent enquiries by issuing notices. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) further observed that merely because a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has himself has done enquiries and found that the assessee s submissions are cogent. Thus, we find that proper enquiry of the submissions by the assessee has not been done. 6.1 We further find that in the present case shares of 10/- each were said to have been given at a premium of Rs.40/- each for which apparently there is no justification. The company s balance sheet and other particulars have not been furnished before us from where it can be adduced that the companies shares can command so much of premium. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not touched upon this aspect. In our considered opinion, the matter needs to be remitted to the files of the Assessing Officer, to enable the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
