9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een introduced in the following names:- 1) Marudhar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Rs.25,00,000 2) Comet Tieup Pvt.Ltd. Rs.15,00,000 3) Whiteline Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Rs.46,00,000 Total -------------------- Rs.86,00,000/- -------------------- 5. The AO asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the share application money. It has been held by the AO in the assessment order that the assessee failed to produce any evidence in this regard excepting furnishing articles of association of the companies. The AO therefore issued letters to the three investor companies situated at Kolkata calling upon them to furnish details of investment in share application money. However, all three letters returned unserved with the postal remark "no such company, hence unserved". Subsequently, the assessee submitted confirmation letters of all three investors. From the confirmation letters, the AO found that the addresses mentioned in the confirmation letters are the same in which the AO had issued letters which surprisingly were returned back unserved with the postal remark no such company. From the confirmation letter, the AO found that though the details of the cheques issued to the assessee were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the investments having been made through banking channels, no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT (A) further observed if at all the bonafides of the investments are suspected, necessary enquiries can be made for considering the additions in the hands of the investor but no addition can be made in the case of the assessee. 8. The learned DR submitted that when the AO issued letters calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from three companies who had invested in shares, the letters returned unserved with specific postal remark "no such company, hence unserved" which certainly creates suspicion about the investment made by the companies. The CIT (A) also has not examined the fact that cheques amounting to Rs.37 lakhs though have been shown in the books but according to the information received from the bank those cheques were not credited to the assessee's account. Further, the assessee has failed to produce any evidence regarding the creditworthiness of the investors. The learned DR further submitted that the affidavits of the investors are doubtful since they bear no date nor have been notarised. The learned DR relying upon the decision of Delhi High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Registrar of companies in support of allotment of shares such as Form No.35 for increase in capital Form No.23 for having passed special resolution in Extra-ordinary General Meeting and Minutes of Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting, the extracts of the Minutes of the Board of Directors held on 31-3-2005 for allotment of shares in favour of three investors. The learned AR contended that against share application of three companies, share certificates have also been issued to the said companies which are at pages-59 to 61 of the paper book. 10. The learned AR further contended that in the absence of a clear finding by the AO that three share applicants are only name lenders or they do not exist, no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned AR relied upon the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Stellar Investments (192 ITR 287 (Del) ii) CIT vs. Stellar Investments (251 ITR 263 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Lanco Industries Limited (242 ITR 357) (AP) iv) Value Line Securities (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (108 ITD 639) The learned AR relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anis Ahmed and Sons (297 ITR 441 submitted that no adverse i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director of Marudhar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., having its office 94, Lower Chitpur Road, Kolkata which had applied for 1,25,000 equity shares valued at Rs.25 lakhs. The aforesaid affidavit reveals some glaring facts though the affidavit is in the name of Virendra Agarwal but one Vimal Jain has signed at the place of deponent and also in the verification, neither any date has been mentioned in the affidavit nor affidavit is notarised. Similarly, confirmation letter at page-10 of the paper book does not bear any date. Affidavits by other two applicant companies i.e., Comet Tie-up Pvt. Ltd., and Whiteline Commercial Pvt. Ltd., appear at pages 14 and 19 respectively also do not bear any date nor are notarised. It is also seen that the said Virendra Agarwal is Director of both Marudhar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., and Whiteline Commercial Pvt. Ltd. The person who has signed letters placed at pages 11 and 20 of the paper book for Marudhar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., and Whiteline Commercial Pvt. Ltd., appears to be same. It is also seen from the confirmation letters filed earlier with the AO but different persons were signing at different times. All these facts put a question mark on the authenticity of the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
