9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- made on account of unexplained share application money u/s 68 of the Act, ignoring that the share applications alongwith premium were merely accommodation entries and the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the applicants was not proved. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,70,000/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of commission payment made for obtaining accommodation entry of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-?" 3. Now the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court in case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., reported in (2008) 299 ITR 268 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:- "It the share application money is received by the assessee-company from alleged bogus sharehold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITAT, which remains a finding of fact, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse." 4.1. He has also relied upon the judgment in case of CIT vs. Supertech Diamond Tools Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 44 taxmann.com 460 (Raj.) wherein it has been held as under:- "8.The reference to the statements made by some of the persons related with the said investing companies is of no effect because such statements could not have been utilized against the assessee Company when the assessee company had not been afforded an opportunity of confronting and cross-examining the persons concerned. There does not appear anything occurring in the statements of the persons relating with the assessee Company so as to provide a basis for the findings recorded by the AO. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the socalled alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do any thing further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the burden that lay on him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises." 11. In CIT Vs. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd.: 182 CTR (Raj.) 175, in a similar nature matter, this Court observed that the Tribunal having found that the companies from which the share application money had been receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
