9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by making general observations. We find that the decision in the case of Goel Sons Golden Estate P. Ltd. [2013 (4) TMI 571 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Also refereed case - Fair Invest LTd. [2012 (12) TMI 170 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Profits from share trading - The AO has categorically observed that assessee had not given any reply. However, at page 23 of the PB, the assessee refers to the reply filed by it before the AO. We find that before ld. CIT(A) the assessee had advanced detailed submissions, but there is no reference to the reply filed before AO dated 15-7-2008. Ld. CIT(A) has also not recorded any finding on this aspect. Therefore, we restore this issue to the file of AO to decide the issue de novo after considering the assessee’s submissions. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. - Decided partly in favour of revenue. - ITA no. 1560/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2015 - Shri S.V. Mehrotra And Shri Kul Bharat JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P. Das Kanunjna Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Ved Jain Adv. Smt. Rano Jain CA Shri Venktesh Chaurasia CA ORDER Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:- This appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o had allegedly invested the amount. Name of the Company Amount 1.Particular Management Finlease (I) Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 30,00,000 2. Sri Niwas Leasing Finance Ltd. ₹ 30,00,000 3. Ganga Infin (P) Ltd. ₹ 10,00,000 4. Swetu Stone (P) Ltd. ₹ 10,00,000 ₹ 80,00,000 5. The assessee in its reply pointed out that all the details along with PAN of the companies had already been furnished. The AO, however, observed that assessee had not produced the directors of the company and, therefore, taking note of the fact that the alleged companies were known entry providers observed that genuineness of the transactions had not been proved and the assessee had failed to discharge its onus in this regard. He relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT Vs. T. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 278 (SC), wherein it has been held that strong circumstantial evidence is good enough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) deleted the addition, inter alia, observing as under: The AO has no where proved that documents in support of the identity of the parties have not been placed on record and they were forged documents. The AO also has not brought any evidence on record regarding the facts that the share applicants were not creditworthy or genuine, despite the fact that their PAN and copies of I.T. returns were submitted by the appellant. In view of the discussion made above the addition of ₹ 80 lakh is deleted. However, the AO is free to take appropriate action as may be permissible under the law in the case of various share holders alleged to be entry providers. 9. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. Ld. DR referred to para 5 of AO s order and pointed out that since the share application money was received from known entry providers, therefore, AO inferred that genuineness of the transactions had not been proved. He submitted that ld. CIT(A) s finding is entirely on different footing. 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had submitted all the details and evidences to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in a collusive arrangement with persons who are self- confessed accommodation entry providers . 13. Ld. counsel further pointed out that similar view has been taken in the case of CIT Vs. Fair Invest Ltd. ITA no. 232/2012 dated 22-11-2012 by Hon ble Delhi High Court and also in following cases: - Caneron Concrete Industry P Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA no. 4114/Del/11 - dated 3-5-2013); - CIT Vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate P Ltd. (ITA no. 212/2012 dated 11- 4-2012 (Del.); - CIT Vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 597/2012 dated 21-1- 2013); - ACIT Vs. Panchanan International P Ltd. (ITA no. 50/D/2011 dated 23-11-2012); - CIT Vs. Expo Global Industrial Ltd. (ITA no. 1257/2011 dated 20-7- 2012). 14. We have considered the rival submission and perused the entire material available on record. The AO had made addition of ₹ 80 lacs out of the total share application money amounting to ₹ 2,40,00,000/-. Thus, rest of the amount had been accepted by AO. From the assessment order it is evident that AO has merely relied on general information regarding the impugned 4 companies in respect of which addition was made as they were known entry providers. The AO has poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said enquiries and investigation probably the challenge made by the Revenue would be justified. In the absence of these inquiries and nonverification of the details at the time of assessment proceedings, the factual findings recorded by the Assessing Officer were incomplete and sparse. The impugned order passed cannot be treated and regarded as perverse. The appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises. 15. In view of above, this ground is dismissed. 16. Ground no. 3: Brief facts apropos ground no. 3 are that assessee had declared short term profit on shares amounting to ₹ 30,05,599/-, which had been claimed as short term capital gain. The AO taking note of the fact that the business of the assessee was basically trading in shares, required the assessee to explain that when the only activity carried out by the assessee was purchase and sale of shares, why the income earned therefrom should not be considered as business income instead of income from capital gains. The AO has observed that assessee did not file any reply and, therefore, concluded that short term capital gain was to be assessed as business income. 17. Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the AO s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
