9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration for allotment of shares gives rise to suspicion. Assessee to discharge the onus cast upon it by filing necessary evidences. Since, the assessee has not offered any explanation for forfeiture of shares and also failed to prove identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties, came to the conclusion that transaction between the parties are sham, which are not supported by necessary details. Facts remains unchanged, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details before us to controvert findings of the facts recorded by the lower authorities. There is nothing to offer from the assessee side in order to prove the transactions of allotment of shares to two subscribers with any evidences and hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cases has taken consistent view and directed the Assessing Officers to estimate 12.5% profit on alleged bogus purchases. In this case, the AO has estimated profit @12.5% on alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Assessing Officer, hence, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.2230/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2019 - Shri Saktijit Dey, JM And Shri G. Manjunatha, AM For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : V.K. Chaturvedi ORDER PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sary details to prove genuineness of transactions. In response, the assessee has filed details including copy of ITR filed for the relevant years, PAN Numbers, financial statement and ledger account of the subscribers to the share capital. The Assessing Officer, in order to ascertain correctness of claim of the assessee, issued summons u/s 131 of the Act, to the Principle Officer of subscribers companies, but, no compliance by any of the subscribers company to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further observed that assessee has not filed any details in respect of forfeiture of money received from those two applicants for allotment of preferences that too, within short span of less than a year, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties, therefore, merely for the reason of forfeiture of shares, the transactions between the parties cannot be doubted when the assessee has filed complete set of documents including identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. Similarly, the assessee has reiterated its submissions made before the Assessing Officer to argue that purchase from above two parties are supported by necessary evidence and the Assessing Officer has made additions only on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, without ascertaining true nature of transactions between the parties,even, though, the assessee has filed complete set of documents to prove genuineness of transaction between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere with the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer and accordingly, dismissed the ground taken by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. None appeared for the assessee. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In respect of additions made towards capital receipt from two subscriber companies u/s 68 of the Act, we find that the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have brought out clear facts to the effect that the assessee has failed to prove the identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties with conclusive evidences. The Lower authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbedded in alleged bogus purchases. We find that the Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts in the light of information received from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, coupled with further enquiries conducted during the course of assessment proceedings that purchases from above two parties are bogus in nature which are not supported by necessary evidence. Although, the assessee has filed primary evidences in from of purchase bills and payment proof to such purchases against banking channel, but failed to file further evidences in the back drop of clear findings from the Sales Tax Department that they are involved in providing accommodation entries without actual business activity. Even before us, the assessee neither a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
