9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds in this appeal to the effect that the CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 30.00 lakh made by the Assessing Officer ( AO for short) under section 68 of the Incometax Act, 1961, in respect of bogus share capital, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of the contributors and genuineness of the transactions. 1.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee-company was incorporated on 16.01.2004 for carrying on the business of real estate. The return for this year was filed on 30.06.2006 declaring total income of ₹ 12,770/- and adjusted book profit of ₹ 2,29,924/- u/s 115JB. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and thereafter statutory notices were issued for scrutinizing i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... city of the contributors and genuineness of the transactions. It also appears that the AO issued notices to the contributors independently. The assessee filed the details in respect of all these companies, which contain confirmation, PAN, assessment details, affidavit, bank statement, acknowledgement and balance-sheet. These companies also forwarded their replies through post to the AO in the form of confirmation and affidavit. The confirmation and the affidavit have been identically worded and the contents of addition by way of handwriting in the confirmation letter is also the same. It is inter-alia mentioned that various details have already been submitted to the company in which contribution was made. It was reiterated that the contribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not have been made on this ground. In this connection, reliance has been placed on various decisions of the High Court and the Tribunal, copies of which have been placed in the paper book from page nos. 87 to 173, which are as under:- S. No. Particulars 1. CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 911/2010 913/2010 dated 02.08.2010 2. CIT Vs. Meriton Towers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1381/2010 dated 16.09.2010 3. CIT Vs. VRM Global Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1364/2010 dated 14.09.2010. 4. CIT Vs. M/s Rock Metal Minerals Ltd. in ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the name of Shimmers Market P. Ltd. and Onyx Exim P. Ltd. Such a mention implicate the assesseecompany. When questioned as to what enquiries were conducted in the case of Kohinoor Oils Mills Ltd., Puri Milk Food Ltd. and Rapid Impex P. Ltd., no satisfactory explanation has been submitted. Further, the ld. DR stressed that none of the directors of contributing companies could be produced and, therefore, affidavits filed on behalf of these companies cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, it is vehemently argued that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the AO may be restored on this issued. 3. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. From the evidence filed by the contributing com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by following the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held by Hon ble Apex Court that if the identity of the investors is established, the assessment in the case of the investors can be reopened as per law, but no addition can be made in the hands of the company, who has received the share application money. In view of the above, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 5. Keeping in view the mandate of law in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 195 (SC) and the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two authorities below, the share application money, in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
