9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee before the authorities below. Even no arguments are made before us. Ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Undisclosed sources u/s 68 - Held that:- Initial burden upon the assessee to prove identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction have been discharged by the assessee. AO thereafter, did nothing in the matter, therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee. Therefore, it is not a fit case to remand matter to the CIT(A). We are, therefore, of the view that assessee proved identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the course of investigation in the case of Mukesh Gupta group along with its close confidants Shri Rajan Jassal and Shri Surinder Pal Singh found that the group had operated multiple accounts in various branches to plough back unaccounted black money for the purpose of business or for personal needs such as purchase of assets etc. in the form of gifts, share application money, loans, etc. The investigation discovered that the assessee who has unaccounted money wants to take the same in his books of accounts without paying tax through entry operator on commission. It was also noticed during assessment proceedings, the assessee had received share application money from other companies that are also mentioned in the said report as entry pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and Ms. Manju Aggarwal who apparently are also Directors of the Companies from whom assessee has received share application money. The assessee relied upon decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. 194 Taxman 43 and sought their cross examination. The AO noted that the investigation wing made inquiries from the person from whom assessee has received the amounts and it was found that they are engaged in providing accommodation entries. AO also noted that cash was deposited in the accounts of related persons for the purpose of operating bank accounts. These persons have obtained PAN no. and filing return of income. AO noted that no evidence for allotment of shares like Form No. 2 has been provided a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As regards, ground no. 3 and 4 of appeal on the addition of ₹ 35 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before the authorities below like share application form received from investors, bank statements, confirmation of share subscribers, ROC master data for establishing that companies are active and Income tax details of the investors with Balance Sheet. All the transactions are routed through banking channel. Copies of such documents are filed in the paper book at pages 20 to 117. There is no cash deposit in the accounts of the investors. The balance sheet of the investors shows they are having sufficient means to make investments in assessee company. The AO did not make any adverse comment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e question of remanding the matter for re-examination of such persons, would not at all be justified. The Assessing Officer, if he so desired, ought to have allowed the assessee to cross examine such persons in case the statements were to be relied upon in such proceedings. Apart from that, the voluminous documents produced by the Respondents cannot be discarded merely on the basis of two individuals who have given their statements contrary to such public documents. 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon order of ITAT Delhi G Bench dated 17.04.2017 in the case of Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, etc. in which in similar circumstances addition on merit have been deleted. The AO did not make any efforts to prove that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for rebuttal of the allegation. Similarly, assessee was provided with the copies of the statement recorded by the DIT(Inv.) of Shri Vishal Agrawal and Ms. Manju Agrawal, who are apparently also Directors of the Companies from whom the assessee has received share application money, the assessee again sought their cross examination. However, the AO did not provide any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these persons on behalf of assessee to find out the truth. Therefore, such statements cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and of Bombay High Court in case of Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Since, according to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
