9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax in the subsequent year after the same was credited in the bank account of the assessee. It is the submission of assessee that the interest income has been shown on receipt basis and since the assessee has offered the same to tax in the subsequent year, no addition is called for during this year. We find some force in the argument of the ld. counsel that an income cannot be taxed twice. However, it is a mater of record that the assessee has not substantiated by producing necessary evidence either before the AO or before the CIT(A) that the balance interest has been offered to tax in the subsequent year. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- We find the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) has no legs to stand - Penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is cancelled. However, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings and levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) if so required, after completion of the assessment. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. - ITA Nos.3456/Del/2017 & 7644/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... increase in share capital and share premium aggregating to ₹ 3 crores which is depicted in Schedule-1 to the balance sheet. The assessee, during the impugned assessment year, has issued 3 lakh shares of face value of ₹ 10/- at a premium of ₹ 90/-. He, therefore, asked the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the shareholders from whom such money has been received on this account. From the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has issued 3 lakhs shares to the following entities:- S. No. Name of the shareholder No. of shares allotted Total amount received including premium 1. M/s Ram Alloys Casting Pvt. Ltd. 65000 6500000 2. M/s Auxin Impex Pvt. Ltd. 57000 5700000 3. M/s Vibgyor Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 33000 3300000 4. M/s Swami Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 15000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the share application money and share premium. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal. 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the assessee has discharged the onus cast on it by producing all the relevant documents before the lower authorities. He submitted that all the share applicant companies have in their balance sheet sufficient funds in shape of share capital and free reserves. Therefore, merely because the income of these concerns are very low, the same cannot be a ground to disbelieve the investments made by them especially when the assessee has discharged its onus by producing the relevant material to substantiate the identity and credit worthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of the transactions. Referring to the provisions of section 68, he submitted that the onus on the assessee to prove the source of the source is only after the amendment. However, since the impugned assessment year is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd, order dated 05.03.2019 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd, 2019-TIOL-172-HC-DEL-IT. Referring to the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the CBDT, for deciding issues involving addition u/s 68, he submitted that the said Standard Operating Procedure was issued by the CBDT after the order of the CIT(A). He accordingly submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the identity and credit worthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of the transaction. 12. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) should be upheld and the matter need not be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. She submitted that the assessee was given ample opportunities by the Assessing Officer as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d., vide ITA 263/2012, order dated 28th February, 2013. 13.1 We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer, in the instant case, made addition of ₹ 3 crores u/s 68 of the IT Act being the amount received by the assessee on account of issue of 3 lakhs share of ₹ 10/- each at a premium of ₹ 90/- on the ground that the assessee could not fulfill the ingredients of section u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by proving the identity and the credit worthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of the transaction. We find the ld.CIT(A), after considering the three remand reports from the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. It is the submission of the ld. counsel that the assessee has proved the identity and credit worthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of the transaction by providing all the relevant data. It is his sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. So far as ground No.3 is concerned, the same relates to the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of ₹ 2,83,160/- alleged to be interest income for this year. 16. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from ITS details that the assessee company has earned interest income of ₹ 3,03,754/-. However, in the Profit Loss Account, interest income of ₹ 20,594/- was declared. On being asked by the Assessing Officer, it was submitted that the said extra income was booked in the subsequent year. However, in absence of any evidence furnished to this effect and considering the fact that in the 26AS form the said interest income has been credited in the account of the assessee in this fiscal year, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 2,83,160/- being the difference between the amount reflected in the 26AS and the amount declared by the assessee. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
