9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied by ld. Assessing Officer were not tested in the assessment proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer. No opportunity of cross examination was provided by the Assessing Officer to the assessee before using these statements against the Assessing Officer. The assessee discharged its onus as per law, as stipulated section 68 of the Act. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer was not in position to controvert the factual material and documentary evidences placed by the assessee and he could not bring anything contrary on record to negate the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, order of ld.CIT(A) is upheld. - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored." 3. The facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of financial services. Assessee received share capital subscription of ₹ 35 lacs from M/s. Sonal Cosmetics (Export) Ltd., M/s. Gabriel Investment P. Ltd., M/s. Jaihind Synthetics Ltd., M/s. Sonal Silichem Ltd. and M/s. Mihir Agencies P. Ltd. These companies were floated by Mr. Mukesh Choksi. He along with all related concern was searched by Investigation Wing. The said Mukesh Choksi and Mr. Jayesh Sampat, admitted before DIT(Inv.) that companies have received cash from the corporate entity by charging a omission of 0.15% to 1.25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai 'E' Bench in case of M/s. SDB Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.584/M/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 and ITAT, Mumbai Bench in case of Smt. Jyoti D. Shah vs. ITO in ITA No. 1843/Mum/2012 for A.Y. 2003-04. In this background, learned Authorized Representative submitted that order of CIT(A) be upheld. 5. After going through rival submissions and material on record, we find that assessee has received share application of ₹ 35 lacs from five companies, as per details given in the assessment order. The investigation wing had conducted search and seizure on Mr. Mukesh Choksi and Mr. Jayesh Sampat and companies. In their statement, they have stated that they were receiving money from various corporate entities after charging commission of 0.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee company. Therefore, in view of the same reasoning, we cancel the entire addition made and confirmed by the lower authorities here also." The above decision of ITAT, Jaipur Bench also related to Mr. Mukesh Choksi's case of investment in share application. The ratio of Charti Syntex Ltd. (supra) makes it clear that if a share holder has invested the money and if assessee receives such money as share application money and assessee during assessment proceedings provides the details like name and address of corporate entity, PAN no., ROC no., then this may be referred to the concerned Assessing Officer for proceedings against such share holders instead of adding the amount u/s.68 of the Act in the hands of assessee company. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, therefore, these exist on the record of Income Tax Department. The assessee company also filed before the AO Form No.5 and 2 and PAN No. and address of all these share holders, thereby establishing identity and all these companies. Further payment was received by the assessee company through banking channels. The investment has been reflected by these share holders companies in the respective balance sheets. Thus, creditworthiness of these share holders was also established. It is noted from the record that following evidence have been furnished by the assessee with respect to each of the share holders. -Memorandum and Article of Association -Copy of ROC Form No.-2 (alongwith details of share application and share allotment) -Copy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filing returns of income and are duly assessed and thus, identity of the shareholders is also established. (v) Applicant's name is not mentioned in any of the statement of Mr. C. Choksi Group recorded by the IT Department. In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee discharged its onus as per law, as stipulated section 68 of the Act. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer was not in position to controvert the factual material and documentary evidences placed by the assessee and he could not bring anything contrary on record to negate the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, order of ld.CIT(A) is upheld. Appeal filed by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
