9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly as regards the issue of addition on share application money we set aside order of Ld. CIT-A and restored the A.O’s order. Unsecured loan - AO has brought on record the statement of the directors and proprietors of the loan givers and on that basis he has come to the conclusion that the unsecured loans were actually accommodation entries. Ld. CIT-A has deleted the addition on the ground that some of the assessee’s are assessed to tax in the same range. Hence their identities is not in doubt. That the balance sheet are on record hence this transactions are proved. We find that Ld. CIT-A here again has ignored the evidences and the statements obtain by the A.O. It is also not the case that Ld. CIT-A has examined the parties or the accounts himself. Hence the conclusion regarding the genuineness of these loans drawn by the Ld. CIT-A is also not at all sustainable. Thus we find that the deletion of addition unsecured loan by the Ld. CIT-A is not based upon any cogent finding. Only with regard to M/s. Nisha Enterprises where Ld. CIT-a has given a finding that a sum of the ₹ 25,50000/- was and opening balance which was already added u/s. 68 in the assessment year 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT (A) have not appreciated the facts that all the unsecured Loan receipts are supported by confirmation of parties and also their return acknowledgement with Balance sheet. All the supporting evidences has been submitted to the learned CIT (A). iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming interest charged. iv) All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without Prejudice to each other. v) The assessee prays for Leave to add, alter or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal at or before the date of hearing. 3. In this case the Assessing Officer noted the assessee has received following share application money. Name of the party Share Application Money (Rs.) Remarks M/s. Rubicon Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 1,90,00,000/- Face value ₹ 1/- Premium @ ₹ 199/- per share. M/s. Bombaiya Films Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/- F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. M/s. Haranba Finvest Ser. Pvt. Ltd. 25,00,000/- 4. M/s. Niketan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000/- 5. M/s. Nisha Enterprises 2,38,40,000/- 6. Mr. Nitin Soni 36,50,000/- 7. M/s. Radhe Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. 2,50,000/- 8. M/s. Shree Siddhi Steel 28,75,000/- 9. M/s. India Infoline Sec. Pvt. Ltd. 49,77,485/- Total: 7,11,77,485/- 8. Assessing Officer examined the director of M/s. Accurate Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Niketan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. he also examined the proprietor of M/s. Nisha Enterprises, director of M/s. Shri Radhe Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of their statement the A.O. observed that they were indulging in practice of providing various types entries, to the beneficiaries as accommodation entry. A.O further noted that other parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of the party cannot be denied. Once incorporated, a company exists until liquidated in accordance with law. If it is the case of the AO that these art' bogus shareholders then the department is free to proceed to reopen their assessments in accordance with law. But in case of appellant, once existence of the shareholders is not in doubt, no further action lies and the amount of share capital cannot be assessed as appellant company's income chargeable to tax. In view of this legal position declared by the highest court of the land, I hold that the addition of ₹ 1,95,00000/, being the amount of Share Application Money made by the AO in this behalf are required to be deleted in the impugned assessment year as all the limbs discussed in the decision of Lovely exports stands true in this case. 10. As regard the issue of unsecured loan, Ld. CIT-A held as under: I have considered the evidence produced before me as well as the Remand Report of the A.O. While going through the same, I find that the Accurate Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Heranba Finvest Ser. Pvt. Ltd and Niketan Mercantile Private Limited are assessed to tax in the same charge. The identity of these loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. India Infoline Pvt. Ltd. 49,77,485/- 5. Shree Radhe Software Soltuions Pvt. Ltd. 2,50,000/- 6. Nitin Soni 36,50,000/- Total 5,60,42,485/- 11. Against the above orders revenue and assessee are in cross appeal before us. We have heard the Ld. DR. Non-appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is also noted that these appeals are pending since 2011. Several notices have been given to the assessee and none is appearing on behalf of the assessee. Hence we proceed to adjudicate the issue on the basis perusal of records and hearing Ld. DR. 12. As regards the issue of share application money we note that assessee has received share application money from two Pvt. Ltd. Companies amounting to ₹ 1,95,00000/- A.O. has examined the directors of these companies. From the said examination reproduced in the assessment order it is clear that these directors were totally unaware of the transactions of the company. From their statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
