9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. K. R. Manjani, Advocate. Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, SSC. SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): We have heard counsel for the appellant-assessee in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act for short) which pertains to the Assessment Year 2002-03 and arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal for short) dated 31st August, 2018. 2. The appellant-assessee has challenged factual findings recorded by the Tribunal in affirming addition of ₹ 5.27 crores on account of bogus share capital under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, thereby affirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer and reversing the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The appellant-assessee was subjected to search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act on 10th November, 2004 and thereafter notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the appellant-assessee also approached the Settlement Commission on disclosing the undisclosed income of ₹ 17 lacs. 4. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , New Delhi 1,00,000 1,00,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 Changla Steels Pvt. Ltd. 10-3596, Regarpur Karol Bhag, New Delhi 2,00,000 20,00,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 Bic Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 204,Delhi Chamber, Delhi Gate, New Delhi 50,000 5,00,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 Sehgal Fluid Equipment RZ-41A, Mohan Nagar Pankha Road, New Delhi 1,00,000 10,00,000 30.03.2002 30.03.2002 30.03.2002 FNS Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. A-66, Tagore Garden, New Delhi 1,50,000 15,00,000 30.03.2002 30.03.2002 30.03.2002 Rajesh Kumar Gupta 127, Mohalla Kanjimal Dasna Gate (Ghaziabad) 30,000 3,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000 10,00,000 10.12.2001 10.12.2001 10.12.2001 Ethnic Creatio Pvt. Ltd. A-32, Tagore Garden Ex., New Delhi 50,000 5,00,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 SGC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. 50/15, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-18 1,50,000 15,00,00 10.12.2001 10.12.2001 10.12.2001 SGC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. 50/15, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-18 50,000 5,00,000 30.03.2002 30.03.2002 30.03.2002 Polo Leasing Finance Ltd. A-4/181, Rohini Sector-17, New Delhi 1.25.000 12,50,000 13.12.2001 13.12.2001 13.12.2001 Polo Leasing Finance Ltd. A-4/181, Rohini Sector-17, New Delhi 1,00,000 10,00,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,000 2,00,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 Performance Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. A-261, Sashhtri Nagar, New Delhi 1,65,000 16,50,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 Technocom Associates Pvt. Ltd. 205, Delhi Chambers, Delhi Gate New Delhi 1,65,000 16,50,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 Transpan Financial Services Ltd. E-36, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92 1,00,000 10,00,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 Jasdeep Financers Pvt. Ltd. 203, Mukund House Commercial Comples, Azadpur, New Delhi 1,50,000 15,00,000 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 28.02.2002 S.N. Electrical Pvt. Ltd. S-172, Co Cir. 29(4), New Delhi 50,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly peak of such credits should be added as undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee explained the modus operandi by admitting that, to avail the loan from IDBI Bank, it inflated cost of land/building. It also inflated cost of plant and machinery. The explanation of the assessee did not find favour with the Assessing Officers who was of the firm belief that the entire share capital is bogus and benefit of peak credit cannot be allowed on the peculiar facts of the case. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, made addition of ₹ 5.72 crores on account of bogus share capital u/s 68 of the Act. 6. The contention of the appellant-assessee is that the amount received was rotated. It was submitted that addition of bogus share capital should be restricted to ₹ 1.55 cores. 7. We do not find any reasons and ground to accept the said submission as it is accepted that the bogus share capital received on different days amounted to ₹ 5.72crores. The amount paid was not returned and refunded. This being the position, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant-assessee that there was rotation of money and only bogus share capital of ₹ 1.55 crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
