9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hare capital was subscribed in FY 2005-06 and inquiries were made in FY 2010-11 - There is a time gap of near about 5 years, the share applicant might have changed their addresses, which could be verified from the ROC by the AO to substantiate his findings, which has not been done by him - CIT(A) has called for remand report from the AO on furnishing of copy of bank account of M/s Megatronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. at the time of appellate proceedings – revenue has not controverted the findings given by the CIT(A) – Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 203/JP/2012 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2014 - R. P. Tolani, JM And T. R. Meena, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A. K. Khandelwal For the Respondent : Shri Neeraj Jain ORDER Per T. R. Meena,A. M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 09/12/2011 of the learned C.I.T.(A), Central, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2006-07. The effective grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case of CIT(A) Central, Jaipur has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the IT Act on account of share application money and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d up in share premium account. The assessee replied and filed various details on that basis. He deputed his Inspector to enquire the genuineness of the transactions and verified from the field. The Inspector had reported that the said following share holder do not exist at given address. S.No. Name of the investor subscribing to share capital Share Capital Premium 1. M/s Upercon Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Rs.4,00,000 Rs.16,00,000 2. M/s Magic Multiplier Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs.4,00,000 Rs.16,00,000 3. M/s Growthwell Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2,00,000 Rs.8,00,000 4. M/s Megatronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. Rs.6,00,000 Rs.24,00,000 5. M/s Vital Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs.8,00,000 Rs.32,00,000 6. M/s AGR Forex Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Rs.6,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the company and also the fact that the company is registered. The copy of the Inspector report was not provided to A.R. and hence he was not able to exactly comment on the Inspector Report. Now after the assessment was over, the appellant requested and collected the report and he has elaborately and specifically commented on each of the issue raised in the Inspector report. On perusal of the same, it is seen that argument of the appellant in this regard is correct. Briefly the Inspector reported that address of three companies namely M/s Upercon Marketing Pvt. Ltd., M/s Magic Multiplier Services Pvt. Ltd and M/s Growth Well Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd. is shown as 'Jawahar Market' in Punjabi bagh but there is no 'Jawahar Market' in Punjabi Bagh. However, it is noticed that Jawahar Market did exist as is evident from the copy of the bank statement of these above referred 3 subscribers companies, wherein the bank statement show and include the address as Jawahar Market. In respect of M/s Magic Multiplier Pvt. Ltd., new address of the registered office w.e.f. 10/6/2008 is also mentioned. 4.1 In respect of other 4 companies, namely M/s Vital Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s AGR F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of and non-availability of the old address was found explained due to address change. Thus there was reasonable cause for not filing of the bank account of the subscriber company at the assessment stage and therefore filing of the same at appeal stage as additional evidence is allowed to be admitted. Without prejudice to above, same has been filed only to doubly support the argument taken by the A.R. The present A.O. in the remand report, has not given any adverse comment after going through the bank statement of M/s Megatronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. 4.3 In view of these facts and circumstances and considering the legal position on this issue, as decided by various courts, the addition so made by the A.O. considering the share application money received from above referred 8 subscribers companies as undisclosed income of the appellant company totaling to ₹ 2 crores, is hereby deleted. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The learned D.R. vehemently argued that there was a search seizure operation in this case on 17/9/2008. There was no disclosure during the course of search. No incriminating documents were found from the business premises of the assessee. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusion by further investigation. The learned A.R. further drawn our attention on the findings given by the Hon'ble Court that just because of the creditor/share applicant could not be found at the addresses given, it would not give the revenue a right to invoke Section 68 of the IT Act without any additional material to support such a move. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also not allowed to remit back the issue to the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry on addition made U/s 68 of the Act on the ground that there is no reason to send back to the Assessing Officer, only substantial question of law can be decided and second inning cannot be allowed to the Revenue. The learned AR further submitted that during the course of search, no indiscriminating documents were found at the business premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued notice U/s 133(6) of the Act to the share subscribers, which has been served by the postal authorities. The learned Assessing Officer made inquiry from the field office at its back without informing them and used the information against the assessee but the learned CIT(A) had provided opportunity on it. Thus, the appellant had dischar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
