9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 and she examines all of them with respect to the transactions and on the same date, she passes an order deleting the whole addition of Rs. one crore. We do not agree with such an approach of the ld CIT (A) and we are also surprised in the casual manner ld CIT (A) has dealt with the whole issue when the nature of transactions, shareholders creditworthiness and genuineness of the share issued are of dubious nature. Therefore we set aside the whole matter back to the file of the ld CIT (A) with a direction to reexamine the whole issues of the share capital issued by the assessee to the conduits of entry operators at a huge premium after examining the shareholders , their creditworthiness , genuineness of the transaction with respect to their relationship with K K Bansal. - Decided in favour of revenue by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal deposition and for producing the details but there was no compliance. The Ld. assessing officer further wrote a letter on 02/12/2009 to the assessee for submitting the requisite details. In response to which only on 17/12/2009 the chartered accountant of the assessee filed an undated letter along with one sheet containing the details of investment only. Further, ld AO conducted inquiry through the inspector, whose report dated 09/12/2009 showed That the investors do not carry on any business and same similarly, assessee company is also not carrying on any business but it is controlled by one Shri K K bansal group who floated many companies and who has given statement on 28/09/2004 before the Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi to this effect. Thereafter, the Ld. assessing officer held that the entire amount of Rs. one crore, which was allegedly received in cash except ₹ 6 Lacs as source of the cash has not been explained the credit worthiness of the parties have also not been established. He further held that the confirmations are undated and almost all the investors and Investor companies are at the same address and therefore there cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn and final accounts for the assessment year 2007 - 08 and they all have confirmed having invested in the appellant company. Accordingly vide order dated 15/6/2012 she held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is established by the assessee of all the creditors and therefore the addition cannot be made under section 68 in the hands of the appellant. With respect to the statement of Sh. K.K .Bansal she held that the statement was not confronted to the appellant and if the Ld. assessing officer had to rely on the same, he would have made further enquiries to conclusively established that the share application received from various parties actually emanated from the coffers of the appellant, as this has not been done by the Ld. assessing officer and therefore addition cannot be made on that basis. Ultimately, she deleted the whole addition of ₹ 1 Crore. Revenue being aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) has preferred appeal before us. 4. The Ld. departmental representative vehemently contested the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submitted that she has deleted the addition without even verifying any details with respect to the identity, cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of hearing before the Ld. CIT (A) all the persons appeared and were examined on a single date. He stated that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) merely believes what was stated before him by the appellant without verifying himself or directing AO and without applying his mind. He further submitted that the order of the CIT (A) does not have any legs to stand wherein the addition under section 68 of the act has been deleted. He stated that order of ld CIT (A) totally disregards the report of inspector, which shows that there are no such persons and none of them is carrying any business there. Therefore he submitted that the order of the Ld. assessing officer may be restored and the order of the Ld. CIT (A) may be set-aside. He further placed on record written submission containing 9 pages to support the order of the Ld. assessing officer. 5. On behalf of assessee, none appeared on the appointed date. On reading of the proceeding sheet it is noted that none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the first date of hearing on 10th of October 2013. Subsequently on 11/03/2014, 21 April 2014, 27th May 2015, 09/03/2016, 08/06/2016, 14/09/2016, 29/11/2016, 22/02/2017 and on the last dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to the directors of the company were also not complied with. Number of show cause notices were issued by the Ld. assessing officer to the appellant but no concrete details were submitted and in this background, the Ld. assessing officer made addition under section 68 of the income tax act. Therefore, assessee remained totally non-compliant before the Ld. assessing officer and furnished scanty details. Therefore, the details submitted by the assessee were examined by the ld AO and issued summons to the creditors/ subscribers. On non-attendance, he deputed inspector to conduct local spot inquiries , in response to that also the confirmation submitted by the appellant could not be verified. Hence ld AO on submission of details , kept asking assessee to submit complete details, further carried inquiry through inspector and also issuing summons to the subscribers, and as a last resort also issuing summons to the directors of the appellant, but all efforts in vain. Therefore, the ld AO reached at the correct conclusion that details in question could not be substantiated by the assessee. Therefore, according to us the assessee failed to discharge onus cast upon it under section 68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , A-2/58-B, Lawrence Road, Delhi- Krishan Kumar 1,26,270/- 2, 00,0007- cash on 8.1.07 7. Kunjar Mercantile 1 P.I_td.,L-119, Shastri ' Nagar, Delhi-52 Naveen Garg 3,8637- 5,00,000/-cash on 5.5.06 & 3,00,0007- cheque on 8.2.07 h r Madhu Garg, L-119, I Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 Madhu Garg 1,18,5007- 200,0007- cash on 21.1.07 9. Nitital Bansal,A-2/58-B, Laswrence Road, Delhi-35 Nitin Bansal 1,14,3407- 2,00,0007- cash on 21.1.07 10. Noble Mercantile P.I_td.,L-1 32, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 Sandeep Kumar 15,1437- 8,00,0007- cash on 5.5.06 11. Sachin Garg,L-119, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 Sachin Garg 1,27,2807- 2,00,0007- cash on 15.12.06 12. Solo Mio Marketing P.Ltd.,L-1 32, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 Sandeep Kumar 12,0127- 10, 00, 0007- cash on 5.5.06 13. Surender Garg, L-119, Shahstri Nagar, Delhi-52 Surender Garg 1,01,5507- 2,00,0007- cash on 15.12,06 14. Susheela Garg, L-132, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 Susheela Garg 1,32,8187- 2,00,0007- cash on 21.1.07 15. Twinkle Steels P. Ltd., L-132, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 Vinod Kumar Garg 8,2057- 12,00, 0007- cash on 5.5.06 16. United Head Hunters P.Ltd.,B- 1521, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 K.K. Bansal & Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
