9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Najmi Waziri, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ved Jain with Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates ORDER 1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had concurred with and affirmed the appellate Commissioner s order directing the cancellation of an amount of ₹ 25,00,96,500/-. It is urged that having regard to the law laid down in relation to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the concurrent findings of the CIT (A) and ITAT are unsustainable. 2. The assessee which engages itself in investment business with capital markets rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shifting burden and once an assessee discharge its primary onus, the burden shifts on the revenue. In the present case the appellant had duly discharged its onus by submitting necessary evidence available to establish the bona fide of the transactions. Thereafter, the onus shifted on the revenue to prove that the claim of the appellant was factually incorrect. Simply by pointing out that the claim of the appellant was factually incorrect. Simply by pointing out that the applicant companies did not have sufficient income or that the bank accounts indicated credits and debits in rapid succession leaving little balance does not discharge the burden cast upon the revenue to take an adverse view in the matter. Further, if there was statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect in the circumstances of the case. Learned counsel relied upon a tabular chart prepared by the AO to submit that most of the share applicants had paid little or no income tax and that analysis of the bank statements furnished by such investors revealed that the amounts were deposited in cash and also routed through different entities. It was submitted that whereas the identity of the investors was no doubt established, neither the genuineness nor credit worthiness could be said to have been satisfied to pass the test of bona fide transactions. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the CIT (A) s decision - as endorsed by the ITAT - is required to be set aside in this appeal. 6. This Court has considered the materials on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 M/s Simphony Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd. AAECS0612B 4,161,750.00 5,112,447.00 8 M/s Texila Commerce Pvt. Ltd. AABCT0569P 7,627,500.00 5,110,307.00 9 M/s Kajal Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. AABCK4093R 12,591,750.00 30,019,461.00 10 M/s Majestic Deal Com Pvt. Ltd. AABCM9098G 3,740,250.00 11 M/s Cherry Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. AABCC9327N 17,466,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17,329,500.00 15,042,806.00 21 M/s Vishnupriya Prop. Pvt. Ltd. AAACV8829P 4,648,500.00 3,892,620.00 22 M/s Zenith Goods Services Pvt. Ltd. AAACZ0908P 14,387,250.00 20,027,787.00 23 M/s Concert Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. AABCC9445K 14,070,000.00 99,993,410.00 8. It is quite evident from the CIT (A) s reasoning in paragraph 4.3, that the materials clearly pointed to the share applicants possessing substantial means to inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
