9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hatsoever has been done by the AO. The observations made by him are only raising a doubt without carrying out any investigation. Surprisingly we note that the AO was having doubt in mind but he never issued any notice or summon to any of the directors. It is not a case where any confessional statement has been recorded by any entry provider of accommodation entry. It is a case of a doubt raised by the Assessing Officer but such doubt has not been converted into any evidence or material so as to substantiate the addition. We are of the view that the additions made by the AO in respect of share capital received from these four companies are not justified and accordingly the same is directed to be deleted. As regards the fifth company i.e. Prime Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. we note that the inspector has carried out the enquiry and in this report the inspector has pointed out that on local enquiry it is revealed that there is no company called this name at the address and there is only a residential place at the said premise. The Ld. AR during the course of the hearing could not rebut this finding of the inspector. In view of this specific finding of the inspector which remains unrebutted, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A are bad in law as no valid search was carried on the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of assessee that the proceedings initiated under Section 153A against the appellant are in violation of the statutory conditions and procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in law and likely to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of assessee that the notice issued under Section 153A by the AO is in violation of the provisions of the Act and as such the assessment framed in consequence thereof is bad. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of assessee that the assessment framed under Section 153A/143(3) being against the statutory provisions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law, is bad and the same is liable to be quashed. 6(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 21 lacs. 6. The brief facts to the present controversy are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out in the Swastik Pipe Group of Companies on 28th August, 2008, which included the assessee company as well. In the course of the proceedings initiated under section 153A, the Assessing Officer noted from the balance sheet that assessee company has received share capital from the following companies :- S. No. Name of investor Amount-Rs. 1. A.C. Steels Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/- 2. Grewal Steels Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000/- 3. Sumit Credit Co. Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/- 4. Prime Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/- 5. M/s Sofed Comtrde Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/- Total 30,00,000/- 7. The AO further noted that all the investor companies are Kolkata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the following three companies:- S. No. Name of investor Amount-Rs. 1. A.C. Steels Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/- 2. Grewal Steels Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000/- 3. Sumit Credit Co. Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/- Total 20,00,000/- 12.1 The adverse inference has been drawn on the basis of the inspector report quoted by the Assessing Officer on para 4.4 and 4.5 as under:- 4.4 The results of these inquiries the Inspector of Income Tax was received in this office vide letter dated 24.10.2010. The contents of the inquiry report are reproduced below:- As directed by the Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-III(3), Kolkata, I went to 6, Clive Row on 22.11.2010 at 4:30 PM. I went to inspect were three companies viz. steel holding Pvt. Ltd., Grewal Steel Holding Pvt. Ltd. Sumit Credit Co. Ltd. exist at room No.6/7 4th Floor, Clive Row or not. I did not find any name place of the above mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial place of the said premise and there was name plate placed outside the main entrance of the said premises named as, Buddhadeb Das 30/1, Mahesh Paul Lane, Santragachi, Howrah. 12.4 As regards the balance cheque of ₹ 5 lakh received from Sofed Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., there is absolutely no adverse material. There is no inspector report. The Assessing Officer has simply stated that the genuineness of the transaction is in doubt as can be seen from the observation of the Assessing Officer in para 8.1 and 8.2 which read as under:- 8.1 The assessee vide its letter dated 16.11.2010 submitted the confirmation alongwith a copy of the income tax return acknowledgement and an extract of the bank statement. A perusal of the income tax return shows that M/s SofedComtrade Pvt. Ltd. has shown a total income of ₹ 5,150/- only during assessment year 2005-06. 8.2 In view of the factors mentioned above, the creditworthiness of M/s Sofed Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. and the genuineness of the transaction are in doubt. In this context, it further relevant to note the shares held by M/s Sofed Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Smt. Anupama Bansal the daughter-in-law of the Director of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained inspector report which has been quoted in the assessment order. On the basis of this report, the Assessing Officer has drawn adverse inference holding that the companies are not in existence at the place stated. We note that the Assessing Officer is not correct in drawing such adverse inference on the basis of this report. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR that the inspector has visited this premises on the evening at 4.30 PM. The inspector has confirmed that there was an office with a name plate, AS Grewal Co. The inspector has further stated that the registered office of these companies belongs to a tax consultant. On the basis of these findings, the Assessing Officer has drawn adverse inference and made the addition. We are of the view that the Assessing Officer is not justified on the basis of this inspector report to hold that the identity of the shareholder company has not been established. On the contrary, as rightly pointed out, the common surname Grewal is good enough to indicate that the office of these companies were at that premises. The inspector did not make any effort to make any further enquiry about these companies and also Assessing Officer did not ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
