9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credits Pvt. Ltd., as requested by ld. counsel for the assessee. Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Brief facts of the case are that in course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that during previous year assessee had received share capital amounting to ₹ 62,50,000/- out of which ₹ 15,00,000/- was shown to have been received from M/s Well Wish credits Pvt. Ltd. He noted that as per the investigation conducted by Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), this company was found to be an entry operator. Accordingly, he issued notice u/s 133(6) to M/s Well Wish credits Pvt. Ltd. at the address submitted by assessee but the said notice was received back undelivered from the postal authorities. This fact was informed to the assessee and he was required to produce the party, give correct address of M/s Well Wish credits Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee had also relied on following case laws: - CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195; - CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2007) 299 ITR 268 (Del.); - CIT vs. Value Capital Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Del.); - CIT Vs. TDI Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 26 DTR (Del.) 358; and - Bhav Shakti Steel Mines (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 179 Taxman 25. 5.1. After considering the assessee's submissions and various case laws, relied upon by assessee, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, inter alia, observing in para 5.3 that assessee had given all the necessary details in order to establish the identity of the share applicant. Therefore, it was fair to conclude that the share applicant was an existing party and the paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the case. We find considerable force in the submission of ld. DR. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Empire Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), unless all the three ingredients for invoking section 68 are fully satisfied, addition cannot be deleted merely on the ground that the identity had been established. We find that in order to establish the creditworthiness the assessee had claimed that the investor company was assessed to tax. However, as rightly pointed out by ld. CIT(DR), the investor had returned income of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh credits. 2.1 The Id CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the existence/credit worthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The Id CIT(A) also ignored the findings recorded by the A.O that the assessee received the money in question from the entry operators. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised above at the time of the hearing." 12. Admittedly, facts of the case in respect of this assessee are identical to the facts in the case of M/s Lipi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., above, wherein we have restored the matter back to the file of AO to provide one more opportunity to assessee to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
