9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eness and creditworthiness of the assessee company, we hold that the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) is unsustainable and deserves to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 2467/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2015 - I. C. Sudhir, JM And L. P. Sahu, AM For the Appellant : Shri D C Agarwal, Adv For the Respondent : Shri A C Mohanty, DR ORDER Per L P Sahu, AM This appeal by the assessee has been filed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXXIII, New Delhi dated 2.7.2013 with the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- being the share application money. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see company is that it had taken accommodation entry of ₹ 1,000,000/- received from Jai Shiv Fabricators (P) Ltd. and commission of ₹ 5000/- was paid to the entry provider. Consequent upon the search, a notice u/s 153A was issued. In compliance of this, return was filed at NIL income and on the basis of this return, scrutiny assessment was made with an addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- for share application money received from Jai Shiv Fabricators (P) Ltd. and ₹ 5000/- paid to entry provider. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish necessary details for share capital received by it. In this regard, the assessee company did not furnish the required details, viz. confirmation, ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.12.2009. Subsequently, return was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 30.12.2010 with the addition in the following manner. 5. He disallowed the above expenses of ₹ 318956 only on the basis of like mandated information is not contained in the bills like telephone no., bill no. etc. whereas the appellant had deducted TDS as wherever applicable. 6. Against the above order, he preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority and he confirmed the addition of ₹ 10,05,000 (Rs.10,00,000 towards share application money and ₹ 5000 for commission paid to entry provider) and he deleted the addition of ₹ 3,18,956. Against this order, he came up in appeal before us. 7. All grounds of appeal ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. He submitted that the invoking of deeming provision u/s 68 is uncalled for due to the following reasons which were placed on record before the Assessing Officer:- (a) share application money had been received from the person (as per particulars on page 2 of the assessment order dated 26:12.2007 itself); (b) the shareholder is identifiable from their income-tax particulars (which were duly placed on record during assessment proceedings); and (c) remittances have been received through proper banking channel from the bank accounts of the person concerned. 8. It is clear from the above that my client has discharged his liability. Once the identity of the investor is established, which has been done in the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la in I.T.A. 707/2014 (Delhi High Court) 2. Pr.CIT(Central-II) vs Smt. Kusum Gupta in I.T.A.634/2015 3. CIT(C)-I vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. in I.T.A. 13/2014 4. Sanjay Aggarwal vs DCIT (2014) 47 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi - Trib.) 11. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla in I.T.A. 707/2014 wherein it has been held that Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assesseed , we hold that the completed assessments can be interfered with by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search in the earlier assessment years. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
