9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he evidence filed by the assessee. In view of aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that the assessee remain non-cooperative before the AO and did not file requisite documents before the AO, as asked by him and as a result thereof,we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee and the AO did not verify the documents furnished by the Assessee and also not done the independent inquiry and verification properly. Therefore, we think it proper to set aside the issue in dispute to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, after making independent inquiry and verification, as deem fit. However, the Assessee is also directed to submit all the necessary documents, as asked by the AO during the assessment proceedings and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee company filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹ 3,34,958/-. Accordingly, a Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was issued on 27.10.2006 and served upon the assessee. The case of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 27.11.2006. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AR of the Assessee attended the proceedings on certain dates. AO observed that since beginning of the assessment proceedings, the assessee has been found lacking in furnishing the requisite details/ information. AO further observed that it is apparent from the records that the assessee has already been allowed sufficient time and opportunity to furnish the requisite details/ information and there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed confirmation from this company regarding subscription of share capital amounting to ₹ 20,00,000/- and share application money of ₹ 54,000/-. AO further observed that in view of the Hon ble Delhi High Court decision dated 30.7.2007 in the case of CIT vs. Himalaya International Ltd. it has been held that if the AO harbors doubts of the legitimacy of any subscription, he is empowered, nay duty-bound to carry out thorough investigation u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee has to prima facie prove (i) the identity of the creditor/ subscriber (ii) the genuineness of the transaction (iii) the creditworthiness, which he has not done, therefore, the AO added ₹ 1,12,54,000/- (Rs. 30,00,000 _+ ₹ 62,00,000 + S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the genuineness of the transactions. The appellant has pointed out the he has filed the confirmation alongwith complete address and PAN of the share investors alongwith a copy of their income tax return, audited final accounts including balance sheet, and share application form. He stated that all transactions have been through bank and the share investors are duly assessed to tax. In view of the In view of the evidence filed by the appellant, the onus had shifted to the AO, but the AO has not been able to controvert the evidence filed by the appellant. Considering the judicial decisions on this subject, including those by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court and ITAT, the addition made u/s. 68 is not sustainable in law and is therefore, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
