9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thiness and genuineness of all transactions by relying on various judicial pronouncements. Thus, this addition is not justified under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the amount on account of unsecured loan which was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3645/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3644/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3646/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3647/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3648/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3650/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3651/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For The Appellant : Shri A. Ramachandran For The Respndent : Dr. P. Danial ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM:- These appeals by the Revenue are directed against respective orders of the CIT(A)-22 Mumbai in respect of seven different assessees. Since these appeals involve common issues, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. ITA No. 3645/Mum/2014 AY 2007-08: This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of CIT(A) on fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 40 lakhs received by the assessee from various corporate entities. Addition was made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus share application money under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, which was deleted by CIT(A) by following various judicial pronouncements in similar facts and circumstances. Same has been opposed on behalf of the Revenue inter alia submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of share application money without appreciating the fact that addition was made based on specific information provided by Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department. That investor companies have issued cheques towards alleged share application money in return of cash. Assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it to prove the credit entries of share application money as required under statute. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. Before us the stand of the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee has been that the facts of this case are similar to the following decided cases and pleaded that the ratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that there is no documentary evidence against the assessee-company to support such impugned additions. It was further submitted by the assessee that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the statements of any person recorded u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, the assessee-company has fully discharged the burden of proof, onus of proof and explained the source of share capital and advances received by established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction by banking instruments with documentary evidences. The further stand of the assessee has been that the assesseecompany substantiated the details with the documentary evidences as extracted from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India before the Assessing Officer. These facts have not been rebutted on behalf of the Revenue. 2.5 In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as considering the decisions as discussed above on the similar issue, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the entire impugned additions of ₹ 40 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 wherein having considered all ingredient of Sec. 68 of IT Act, granted relief to assessee which has been approved by us in paragraph 3 of this order. Thus, this addition is not justified under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the amount of ₹ 30,47,169/- on account of unsecured loan which was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. 3.3 Accordingly, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 4. ITA No. 3646/Mum/2014 : AY 2006-07: In this case, i.e., ITO vs. M/s. Samsung Builders Developers P. Ltd., the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 25,23,426/- under section 68 of the Act in respect of share application money of ₹ 10 lakhs and on account of unsecured loan of ₹ 15,23,426/- which was deleted by CIT(A). The issue in this appeal is similar to the issue we decided above in case of M/s. Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 3645/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2007-08 and in the case of M/s. Sitara Properties Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 3644/Mum/2014 (supra) in this order itself. Facts and issues being similar, so following same reasoning we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08: In this case i.e., ITO vs. M/s. Roop Darshan Real Estate P. Ltd., Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 70 lakhs under section 68 in respect of share application money which was deleted by the CIT(A). Identical issue was raised before us in ITA No. 3645/Mum/ 2014 in the case of Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein we dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Since the facts and circumstances are similar in this appeal, so following the same reasoning we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 70 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of share application money. Same is upheld. 7.1 In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 8. ITA No. 3651/Mum/2014: In this case, i.e., ITO vs. M/s. Sumangal Builder Developers P. Ltd.. the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- under section 68 in respect of share application money which was deleted by the CIT(A). Identical issue was raised before us in ITA No. 3645/Mum/ 2014 in the case of Super Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein we dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Since the facts and circumstances are similar in this app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
