9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Shri Rajendra Bubna was confronted with only a sample of companies and was asked to confirm if he used these companies to provide accommodation entries, which was answered by him in positive - Decided against assessee - ITA 723/2018 & CM No.26947/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2018 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Advocate Respondent Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): This appeal by Seema Jain under Section 260-A of the Income Tax, 1961 (Act), arises from order dated 17th May, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal') in ITA No.6709/Del/2017 and relates to Assessment Year ( AY ) 2014-2015. 2. Tribunal in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the source thereof or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. Satisfaction as to the source is normally ascertained by the assessee establishing and discharging the onus as to the identity of the payer, capacity or creditworthiness of the payer and genuineness of the transaction. 7. Tribunal in the impugned order has recorded and referred to several facts, which were compelling and would establish that the loan of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- from M/s PTPL was a facade and bogus transaction. It was a pretence and subterfuge adopted to circulate unaccounted money. Argument that the stated loan of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- was refunded on 23rd September 2014 and other submissions were duly noted and examined by the Tribunal, but rejected an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rores against paid up capital of ₹ 48 lacs had casts doubt on the creditworthiness. It was incomprehensible that a company earning a few thousand rupees would command a premium of roughly 38 times the face value. These indicate that M/s PTPL was a shell and paper company. 5) Directors of M/s PTPL had failed to appear before the AO in-spite of summons under Section 131 of the Act. 8. M/s PTPL had two directors, namely, Dipak Singh and Brij Mohan SA. Dipak Singh was a director in 16 companies and Brij Mohan SA was a director in 12 companies. (Tribunal recorded that Dipak Singh may be a director in other companies as well.) Fifteen companies were functioning from a common one room address- 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Commerce Hous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... several companies which were paper and shell companies. Rajendra Bubna had described in detail how funds/ cash / money was rooted through a complex web of paper companies to finally reach the beneficiaries. M/s.PTPL did not figure in the list of dubious companies mentioned by Rajendra Bubna, albeit, Tribunal, observed that this would not make any difference as Dipak Singh was certainly a director of PTPL and had signed the income-tax returns. Accordingly, the appellant had argued before the Tribunal that the AO should have summoned and permitted cross-examination of Rajendra Babua. AO had rejected the contention due to paucity of time. Tribunal on the said aspect observed that the matter could not be decided in favour of the assessee for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that she had absolutely no idea about any loan taken from PTU, which is one of the 24 parties appearing in her balance sheet. 28. When a final show cause notice was issued requiring the assessee to explain as to why a sum of ₹ 1 crore received from PTU be not added to the income as it was a bogus loan received from a paper company, the assessee required cross-examination of Shri Rajendra Bubna and stated that name of PTU was not appearing in the statement of Shri Rajendra Bubna. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has rightly rejected the assessee's contentions on the ground that Shri Rajendra Bubna was confronted with only a sample of companies and was asked to confirm if he used these companies to provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
