9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not brought on record any adverse material to disprove the claim of the assessee. The factual finding of the Ld.CIT(A) could not be controverted by the Ld.D.R. Under these circumstances we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3299/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2015 - G. C. Gupta, VP And J. S. Reddy, AM For the Petitioner : Shri J P Chandrekar, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Satish Aggarwal, CA ORDER Per J Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2003-04 against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 25.04.2011 on the following grounds: 1. The ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal. 2. The factual matrix of the appeal under consideration are as under: Return of income was filed on 06.02.2004 declaring income of ₹ 13,218/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act. The AO received information from the Investigation Wing of the Department, that the companies/persons which contributed towards share application money/share capital were involved in providing accommodation entries. In view of the specific information, the AO initiated action u/s 148 and completed the assessment on 30.12.2010 determining the total income at ₹ 52, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing rival submissions and considering the papers on record and orders of the authorities below, we hold as follows. 5. The First Appellate Authority has held that the assessee filed all necessary details, including the assessment details of the share applicants/investment companies before the A.O. The amounts are stated to have been received through banking channels. The A.O. issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the share applicants and statements were recorded from the following persons. 1) Shri Shiv Lal, Prop: M/s Global Capital Consultancy. 2) Shri Vinod Garg, Director of M/s Sparro Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 3) Shri Umesh Gupta, Director of M/s Umesh Securities P. Ltd. 4) Shri Shiv Lal, Director of M/s IBEX Infotech P. Ltd. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such credit in the books of the assessee. Rather, the assessee company has received the share application money for allotment of its share. It was stated that the actual amount received was ₹ 55, 50, 000/- and not Rs.l,11,50,000/- as mentioned in the notice. The assessee has furnished details of such receipts and the contention of the assessee in respect of the amount is found correct. As such the unexplained amount is to be taken at ₹ 55,50,000/-. The assessee has further tries to explain the source of this amount of ₹ 55,50,000/- by furnishing copies of share application money, balance4 sheet, etc. of the parties mentioned above and asserted that the question of addition in the income of the assessee does not arise. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the ROC in relation to the share application, affidavits for the directors, form 2 filed with the ROC by such applicants confirmations by the applicant for company's shares, certificates by auditors etc. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer chose to base himself merely on the general inference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report and the statement of Mr.Mahes Garg. To elevate the inference which can be drawn on the basis of reading of such material into judicial conclusions would be improper, more so when the assessee produced material. The least that the Assessing Officer ought to have done was to enquire into the matter by, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial. 7. Applying the propositions laid hereinabove to the facts of the case, we have to conclude that the assessee had discharged the onus that lay on it u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. has not brought on record any adverse material to disprove the claim of the assessee. The factual finding of the Ld.CIT(A) could not be controverted by the Ld.D.R. 8. Under these circumstances we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 9. Coming to the addition on account of commission, this is consequential in nature and in view of our finding in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act, this addition is also deleted. 10. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
