9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrary evidence to prove the transaction to be bogus. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2017 - Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For Appellant : Manu Ghildyal For Respondent : Ashish Bansal, Kartikeya Saran ORDER The Revenue has come up in this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 07.08.2015 by which the appeal of the assessee respondent has been allowed and the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been deleted. In respect to the assessment year 2010-11 the respondent assessee declared gross income of ₹ 30,77,084/-. The case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditworthiness to make the aforesaid investment. The Assessing Officer has opined that since the Officer deputed to serve summons to the Managing Director/Directors of the aforesaid companies could not found any of them, the said companies were only in the name and their creditworthiness is in doubt and as such the entries cannot be treated as genuine. Accordingly, he made an addition of ₹ 1,90,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On behalf of the assessee respondent the submission before the Tribunal was that in order to prove the share application money received from the two companies sufficient documentary evidence was adduced viz. Form No.2 i.e. return of all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 68 of the Act. It is well settled that where the assessee discharges the burden to prove the creditworthiness of the persons/companies making investment and the identity of those persons/companies is established, the burden to prove otherwise shifts upon the Assessing Officer and if he fails to discharge the said burden that transactions are not genuine then it would not be a case for any addition under Section 68 of the Act. In this connection the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 361 ITR 10 wherein it was held as under:- Whether amounts are shown as share application money it is a simple question of whether the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
