9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the identity, source and genuineness of share capital in the light of documents produced and settled legal principles clarified above. Even the Assessing Officer has also not disputed the identity, source and genuineness of share capital. We are also of the view that it is unnecessary burden upon the assessee by pressuring it to bring the creditor from the foreign country which is contrary to the facts of the case as well as evidence produced by the assessee. Thus the assessee has fully proved its burden and discharged the onus upon the Department, however, no contrary evidence was shown by the AO which will prove that the transactions were not genuine, therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is totally unwarranted and the same needs to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition as unexplained credit balance - addition on account of difference between confirmations received from the party and balance appearing in the books of the assessee - Held that:- The reconciliation statement was filed during the assessment proceeding vide letter dated 05.02.2013 in which the difference was duly explained and as such the observation of Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocessed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. At, 1961. Subsequently, the case was taken up in scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 25.8.2011 and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s. 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee wherein certain specific details were called for. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment at an income of ₹ 3,61,23,345/- by passing the order dated 30.3.2013 u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and made various additions. 3. Against the order of the Ld. AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 21.12.2015 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that assessee has filed all necessary documentary evidence before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) for substantiating its claim in spite of the same the Revenue authority has wrongly made the addition in dispute. He draw our attention towards the Paper Book filed by him containing pages 1 to 79 in which he has attached various documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the lower a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute is squarely covered by these decisions and requested to delete the addition in dispute. - CIT vs. Rhombus International Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 223/13) - CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Delhi) (HC) - CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel Alloys Ltd. SLP (CC) No. 15640 of 2012 dated 17.9.2012. - CIT vs. Harishbhai Raojibhai Patel HUF (2013) 219 Taxman 125 (mag.) (Guj.) - CIT vs. Jay Dee Securities and Finance Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 220 - Abhik Jain vs. ITO (2012) 18 ITR 497 (Delhi Trib.) - CIT vs. Hemant Hasmukhlal Shah (2013) 217 Taxman 25 (Mag.) (Guj.) (HC) - CIT vs. Kamna Medical Centre (P) Ltd. (2013) 217 Taxman 16 (Mag.) (All.)(HC). - CIT vs. Bhaval Syntehtics (2013) 35 taxmann.com 83 (Raj.) (HC) - CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd. 177 Taxman 331 (Del) - CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 0334 (Delhi) - Pr. CIT vs. Rakam Money Matters P Ltd. (Delhi HC) - CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms P Ltd. (Delhi HC) - ITO vs. Hare Krishna International ltd. (Delhi ITAT) - MOD Creations P Ltd. vs. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del.) - CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 5 (SC). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent that assessee has established identity, source and genuineness of share capital. We find that there is no dispute that Sh. Suveer Arora is a regular income tax assessee in Delhi and the fact of share capital is supported from his assessment record. Further, the share capital is through account payee cheques and copy of the bank statement has also been placed on record and the share capital is corroborated from his bank statement. As already clarified the assessment of share holder Sh. Suveer Arora for this very assessment year was completed uls 143(3) and the issue of share capital was duly considered and verified. The factual position to this effect is corroborated from letter dated 14.02.2013 furnished during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Sh. Suveer Arora. There is thus no ground or basis to dispute the correctness of the share capital as the same is fully supported from facts and settled legal principles as laid down in the following cases:- A. CIT Vs. Rhombus International Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 223/13. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Delhi Court are extracted hereunder: 14. It is not the case of the revenue that these persons are entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel Alloys Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 220 in which it has been held: Cash credits--Unexplained investments--Burden of proof--Share application money--Assessee explaining source' of money-Identities of applicants and their creditworthiness established--Burden of proof discharged by assessee--Onus shifted to Department--No evidence to show transactions were not genuine--Sections 68 and 69 not applicable- -Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 68, 69: D. CIT v. Harishbhai Raojibhai Patel HUF [2013] 219 Taxman 125 (Mag.)(Guj.) When it was established that deposit in question was paid by NRI to assessee from his NRE account, no addition could be made under section 68 on that account. 7.2 In the light of the fact that share capital was through NRE account no. 0369040200000017 with J K Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. (Mentioned at page no. 54 of the Paper Book vide Confirmation dated 12th March, 2013) which is part of his assessment record, the issue of source and remittance to NRE account is fully supported and verifiable as the assessment for year unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case, because in para 8 of the said judgment it is mentioned that these investors did not submit any confirmation and had concededly reported far less income than the amounts invested. However, in the present case the following documents were filed before the lower authorities: a. Confirmation from Mr. Suveer Arora b. Copy of PAN Card of Mr. Suveer Arora c. Copy of Bank Statement showing the investment made and source thereof. d. Copy of Form No.2 regarding allotment of shares e. Copy of Passport of Mr. Suveer Arora f. Copy of Income Tax Return and assessment order passed uls. 143(3) for A.Y. 2010-11. g. Copy of letter dated 14.02.2013 during the assessment proceedings in the case of Sh. Suveer Arora in respect to issue of share capital to assessee. h. Affidavit of Sh. Suveer Arora. 7.5 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents of the Hon ble Supreme Court and High Courts, we are of the view that the assessee has fully proved its burden and discharged the onus upon the Department, however, no contrary evidence was shown by the AO which will prove that the transactions w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
