9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o satisfy ourselves as to whether the assessee discharged its onus before AO to prove the identity of the third party or contributor which made payment, its creditworthyness and genuineness of the transaction on casted upon the assessee to escape from addition u/s 68 of the Act to presume that the onus is thus shifted to the Revenue to controvered explanation and supporting evidence and material filed by the assessee while discharging its onus as required as per ratio of the recent decision dated 19.02.2015 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Jasampark Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Thus sole issue require verification and examination at the end of the AO. Therefore, the sole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave given statements under oath to the income Tax authorities that they are entry providers and have received cash from beneficiaries before issuing cheques. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from that of Lovely Exports and therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of this case. 3. Briefly stated the facts of this appeal are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.10.2002 declaring the income of ₹ 55,703/- and assessment was framed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on 9.1.2003. Subsequently, proceedings u/s 147/148 of the act were initiated against the assessee in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and these papers were confirmation deeds and other fabricated documents to support the bogus transaction. The Ld. DR, further, contended that before the investigation wing the accommodation entry providers have given statements under oath that they are entry providers and have received cash from the beneficiaries before issuing cheques. The Ld. DR strenuously contended that the First Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the present case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and therefore this judgment of Hon ble apex Court is not applicable to the present case. The Ld. DR finally submitted that the impugned order may be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 5. The Ld. DR a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing officer without examining the same simply proceeded to reject the explanation and evidence of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel finally submitted that the CIT(A) was quite justified in following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the case of present assessee is squarely covered vide this decision and hence impugned order may kindly be upheld. 7. On careful consideration and above submissions and available material placed on record, we note that during the assessment proceedings the assessee pointed out that the assessee has not received any share application money from Shri Nitin Kumar and M/s Acoot India Pvt. Ltd. appearing in serial no. 3 and 5 in the double given in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al as above, primarily in view of the information received from the office of the DIT (Inv.), New Delhi, that the assessee company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries, based ont eh statement of certain person that he was involved in the business of providing accommodation entries. This, however, cannot be taken as a sufficient ground for making such addition in the absence of any further evidence brought on record. 5.2. The appellant on the other hand has furnished all the relevant details in this regard during the course of the assessment proceedings as well as in the appellate proceedings, which have been placed on record. 5.3. At the outset, it has been submitted that the order has been passed by the Assessing Officer withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amount received. It is further submitted that all the investing companies were incorporated many years back. In view of observations of the AO as well as CIT(A) we clearly note that the AO noted that the assessee expressed its inability to produce copies of IT Return and director or of Officer of the company which provided or contributed share application money and the CIT(A) in para 5.2 at page 16 observes that the assessee has furnished all the relevant details during the course of assessment proceedings and granted relief by relying of decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports (Supra). Hence, we are unable to satisfy ourselves as to whether the assessee discharged its onus before AO to prove the identity of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
