9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer for giving the assessee fresh opportunity does not arise. Hence this request is rejected. Addition u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the transactions. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 605/Kol/2015 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member And Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Shri K. M. Roy, FCA, For The Revenue : Shri David Z. Chawngthu, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (hereinafter the ld. CIT(A) ), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Date of application Date of allotment Detail if related party Contact telephone/mobile No. In compliance the assessee has submitted ledger copy of share application money containing information with regard to receipt of share application money as under i.e. column 1 to 5: The assessee was not only asked to submit necessary evidence with regard to genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicant but also reminded vide order sheet 02.12.2009 and 24.12.2009. On 29.12.2009 the assessee submitted an evasive reply stating Share Application Money of ₹ 125.00 lakh has already been allotted on 31.12.2008 and filed to ROC inclusive of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness and transaction of the money though specifically asked time and again. The detail i.e. information submitted to ROC was also examined and discrepancies with regard to several factors including premium amount, no. of shares applied/allotted, amount invested etc. are found and discussed. In the circumstances ₹ 1,30,00,000/- is being added to the total income considering the same as unexplained. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(l)(c) is being initiated. Reliance is placed on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Court for considering it as unexplained- ( i) In a recent decision of Hindus than Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 289 (Cal.) it was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso to prove the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and the genuineness of the transactions. On whom the onus of proof lies in a particular case is a question of law. But whether the onus has been discharged in a particular case is a question of fact. Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Limited v. CIT [1968] 70 ITR 407 (Cal)- There cannot be one general or universal proposition of law which could be the guiding yardstick in the matter of cash credit. Each case has got to be decided to be considered must however be objective facts, evidence adduced before the taxing authorities, presumption of facts based on common human experience in life and reasonable conclusions. In holding a particular receipt a income from undisclosed so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/-. 2. That the addition of ₹ 1.25 crores on account of Share Application money is perverse in the absence of any positive evidence. 3. The appellant reserves the right to raise additional grounds during hearing. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. K. M. Roy, did not press Ground No. 1, and hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. 6. On Ground No. 2, the ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee has discharged the burden of proof that lay on it in proving the identity, creditworthiness as well as the genuineness of the transactions of receipt of share capital, at a premium from a number of Private Limited Companies. He submitted that the identity of the applicants was proved as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven to the assessee by the revenue authorities to prove its claim. The assessee has not attempted to file any additional evidence before this Bench of the ITAT. Under these circumstances, the question of remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for giving the assessee fresh opportunity does not arise. Hence this request is rejected. 9. The ld. First Appellate Authority, at para 9.1.4. and the 9.1.8. has dealt with the issue adequately. We fully endorse the same and for the sake of brevity, we do not extract the same. 9.1. Merely furnishing PAN Numbers in routine way, does not explain the source or the creditworthiness of the party. The basis on which premium has been charged for the shares has not been explained. A p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
