9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or der that the assessee ha s increased share capital during the year for an amount of Rs . 4, 00, 00, 000/-. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition made U/s.68 to Rs. 1,96,00,000/- on account of increase in share capital inspite of holding that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction as per requirement of Sec.68 and there is increase of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- in share capital during previous year relevant to A.Y.2010-11 (Share capital was Rs. 6,00,00,000/in A.Y.2009-10 and Rs. 10,00,00,000/- in A.Y.2010-11). The Ld. CIT(A) 's order i s cont rary to law and facts and deserves to be set aside and A.O.'s order be restored. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)'s order is contrary to law and facts and deserves to be set aside and A.O.'s order be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary." 3. The brief facts relevant to the issue under consideration are that the assessee company is a joint venture of two companies i.e. M/s. Reed Elsevier Overseas BV (a foreign company) with 51% share capital and M/s. Infomedia 18 Ltd. (Indian company) with 49% share capital. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as clear from schedule 'H' that the figure of investment as on 31.03.10 was Rs. 4,90,00,000/- whereas the figure was Rs. 2,94,00,000/- as on 31.03.09; meaning thereby that there was introduction of fresh share capital of Rs. 1,96,00,000/- only. He, therefore, held that no addition of the said amount of Rs. 2,94,00,000/- was warranted for the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), however, held that the assessee had not submitted the bank accounts and confirmation from the subscriber regarding the receipt of Rs. 1,96,00,000/- claimed to be received as share capital from its holding company M/s. Infomedia 18 Ltd. during the year under consideration. He, therefore, upheld the addition of Rs. 1,96,00,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- made by the AO. 5. Before us the Ld. D.R. could not point out any differentiating new fact which may justify our inference into the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the introduction of the share capital money of the amount of Rs. 2,94,00,000/- during the year assessment year 2009-10 and not for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2010-11. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings for the earlier assessment year A.Y. 2009- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of submitting the bank accounts. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that the necessary details had already been furnished by assessee before the AO such as the name, address, PAN and shareholding pattern of the shareholder and even the copy of ledger account and annual financial report for financial year 2009- 10 of M/s. Infomedia 18 Ltd. The Ld. A.R. has also invited our attention to the relevant evidences on the file and has submitted that in the audited financial statement for the financial year 2009-10 of M/s. Infomedia 18 Ltd. the investment made by the company has been reflected. Further, the transaction was disclosed under the "Related party transaction information" in the financial statement of the assessee company and similarly the details of transaction were also disclosed by the M/s. Infomedia 18 Ltd. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has further invited our attention to page 69 of the paper book to demonstrate that the transaction details were also disclosed by way of cash flow statement. Even the information about the source and application of funds of M/s. Infomedia 18 Ltd. was also provided through cash flow statement. He, therefore, has submitted that the information abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said receipts were accounted in the financial year 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009- 10. The assessee in this respect also furnished the copies of the ledger accounts of the respective parties into the accounts of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), however, observed that the assessee had failed to establish one to one correlation between the receipts upon which TDS was deducted by the respective parties and with the income accounted for by the assessee for the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10. He therefore, confirmed the addition so made by the AO. 13. Before us, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has submitted that the AO had not asked for the details and information pertaining to form 26AS from the assessee. However, while passing the assessment order, the AO added the said amount into the income of the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that the receipts in question pertained to the income booked in F.Y. 2008-09 and which was outstanding as on 31.03.09. The said income was duly accounted in the F.Y. 2008-09. However, the customers might have accounted the expenses in next year. Therefore, the said amount is appearing in form 26AS as income of F.Y. 2009-10. The Ld. A.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
