9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess premises of Piyush Group of Companies. A survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after 'the Act') was conducted at the premises of the assessee company. Pursuant to the said operation, notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 30th November, 2009. And in response return was filed on 7th December, 2009, declaring an income of Rs. 28,787/-. The said return culminated into an order of assessment dated 29th December, 2009 at an income of Rs. 1,28,790/- which has been upheld in appeal and is in challenge before us. 3. Ground no. 1 & 2 pertains to assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the search and seizure operation was carried out at the offices Piyush Group and not of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h group of companies, including the assessee company on 16.1.2008. The AO proceeded to refer the share capital introduced of Rs. 1 lakh by the directors of the company Shri Arun Kumar Bansal and Shri Vijay Gupta, based on the statement recorded on 21.2.2008 of the former, and thereafter as the assessee could not furnish confirmations in this respect. In the statement on oath, Shri Arun Kumar Bansal categorically denied making any investment in the company and admitted to being merely a benami, and stated that the investment was made by the Piyush group members. Shri Bansal also stated that he resigned in November, 2007 from directorship of the company apart from 3-4 other companies. Therefore the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isregarded. He has not denied being a director or having subscribed to the share. But he acted in the capacity of a benami only. As per documents furnished in appeal, the company was incorporated on 1.6.2007. Shri Bansal has resigned since, I find that the AO during the assessment proceedings provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to file confirmations for the share capital which was not done. In other words the AO sought to go beyond the statement recorded. I also find that assessee does not appear to have asked the AO for cross examination either. The identities of the two persons are not in dispute, but what is germane to the issue is the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the two persons concerned. Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been correctly rejected by the AO, by observing that said subscription only shows the desire to make investment, but does not confirm investment. In such circumstances we are in agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) who has held as under:- The fact that a statement on oath was recorded just a month after the search operation, wherein Sh. Arun Kumar Bansal disclosed in as much that he was just a name-lender and that no investment had been made by him towards the initial share capital. These enunciations cannot be disregarded. He has not denied being a director or having subscribed to the share. But he acted in the capacity of a benami only. As per documents furnished in appeal, the company was incorporated on 1.6.2007. Shri Bansal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
