9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is liable to prove that the money was actually received. The assessee is also liable to prove the nature of receipt. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was well within his right to make enquiry. Upon enquiry, it transpired that the so called shareholders were non-existent. The Assessing Officer, in the circumstances, was entitled to take the view which he did by his order dated March 31, 2006. The submission advanced by assessee that if the Assessing Officer was in a hurry to complete the assessment and he, therefore, had no time to scrutinise the evidence adduced by the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee failed to discharge his burden is not without substance. Therefore, the appropriate course will be to remand the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firming the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition amounting to ₹ 2,03,40,000/- on account of bogus share capital since the assessee failed to furnish evidences of identity and creditworthiness of the persons from whom share capital was claimed to have been received and also genuineness of the said transaction? In so far as question no.1 is concerned, Mr. Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appearing for the revenue, did not seriously dispute that the subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. Therefore, the same could not have been subject to taxation. We, as such, answer the question no.1 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. With respect to the question no.2, we are, however, of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and credit worthiness of the concerns as mentioned above could not be proved, the share application money received from these persons is added back to the returned income of the assessee as unexplained credits. Mr. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee, however, drew our attention to the following part of the order passed by the Assessing Officer: Vide letter dated 31-3-2006 it has been claimed that all the shareholders details have been submitted which is incorrect. On 31- 3-2006 copy of I.T. Return of M/s Offshore Finvest Ltd., and balance sheet claimed to be audited has been filed vide a letter dated 31-3- 2006 (assessment year 2000-01) and hence there was no time on the part of undersigned to conduct any furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
