9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions / pleas have been raised before us which lead us to reach a conclusion that the issue require re-appreciation by lower authorities. Similar is the position of impugned order where we find that there is no discussion as to how the three ingredients of Section 68 were satisfied by the assessee which led the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the impugned addition. On above facts and circumstances, without delving much deeper, we set aside the impugned issue and remit the matter back to the file of AO for re-adjudication after appreciating the documentary evidences filed by the assessee & pleas raised by Ld. AR. Revenue’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.3586/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2019 - SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 133(6) of the Act were returned back by the Postal Authorities and the assessee also failed to produce these parties. 4.The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-6(3)(4), Mumbai [AO] in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) on 28/03/2015 wherein the income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 491.71 Lacs after certain addition u/s 68 for ₹ 490 Lacs is against returned income of ₹ 1.71 Lacs filed by the assessee on 18/09/2012. During impugned AY, the assessee being resident corporate entity was stated to be engaged in the business of real estate. 2. During assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit u/s 68 and added the same to the income of the assessee. In the original assessment order dated 28/03/2015, Ld. AO made addition of ₹ 490 Lacs, being share premium received by the assessee. However, the addition has been revised to ₹ 500 Lacs by way of rectification u/s 154 on 31/03/2015 to include the portion of share capital therein. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 23/03/2017 wherein the assessee submitted additional evidences in support of the transactions as per Rule 46A which were duly admitted by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the same, reached a conclusion that the assessee satisfied the three ingredients of Section 68 and di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including documents placed in the paperbook judicial pronouncements as cited before us. Upon due consideration, we find that, in the opinion of Ld. AO, the assessee conclusively failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions with cogent evidences during assessment proceedings. The notices sent u/s 133(6) issued to the share applicants remained unserved. It was noted that no substantial business was being carried out by the assessee during several years. The three ingredients viz. identity, creditworthiness genuineness could not be satisfied by the assessee before Ld. AO which resulted into impugned additions in the hands of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 133(6), confirmed the transactions with supporting documentary evidences. The attention has also been drawn to the fact that valuation of shares was justified by following discounted cash flow method which was placed on record. Similar other submissions / pleas have been raised before us which lead us to reach a conclusion that the issue require reappreciation by lower authorities. 5.4 Similar is the position of impugned order where we find that there is no discussion as to how the three ingredients of Section 68 were satisfied by the assessee which led the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the impugned addition. 5.5 On above facts and circumstances, without delving much deeper, we set aside the impugned issue and remit the matter back to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
