9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpleting the paperwork very meticulously or bringing into existence certain documents, the statutory obligation of the authorities does not get absolved merely because the assessee produced certain documents. It is incumbent on the authorities to verify the genuineness of such documents also in the light of the attending circumstances. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are not satisfied in this case that the Ld. CIT(A) appreciated the facts and circumstances in their proper perspective before reaching the impugned conclusions basing on the document as produced by the assessee. We accordingly find it difficult to sustain the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd survey action that was carried out on 14/9/2010 at the residential and business premises of Sh. SK Jain and Sh. Virendra Jain, a number of companies were found to have been running from the residential as well as business addresses relating to those two people whereas all the books of accounts and other relevant papers of such companies were found from the residence of SK Jain and VK Jain and nothing was found at the addresses mentioned in the statutory records of such companies. It was inferred from such fact that those companies were run by these two persons who are controlling such companies through dubious Directors/Principal Officers of such companies and a careful examination of seized material including the computer hard discs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in cash with commission at the rate of 1.75% to the entry operator. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, on that score thought it fit to add a sum of ₹ 4.6 crores under section 68 of the Act and ₹ 8.05 Lacs under section 69 of the Act. 5. Assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act was accordingly complete with an addition of ₹ 4.6 crores under section 68 of the Act and a sum of ₹ 8.05 Lacs under section 69 of the Act by order dated 13/3/2013. 6. Challenging the said addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) referred to the contents of the assessment order. Ld. CIT(A), at the outset, upheld the action of the assessing officer in competing the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had discharged the burden of establishing the identity and the creditworthiness of the share applicants, and the genuineness of the transaction. He therefore deleted the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved by such deletion in the impugned order, Revenue filed this appeal. However, when the matter is called, neither the assessee nor any authorised representative entered appearance. Ld. DR filed the copy of letter from the learned Assessing Officer stating that the notice to the assessee was served by inspector of the office on 14/11/2019 and the enclosed the copy of the affixture report. If the assessee is available in such address, non-service of notice does not arise. If for any reason, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. NRA Iron and Steel (P) Ltd (2019) 13 taxmann.com 48 (SC) and CIT vs. NR Portfolio Private Limited (2014) 42 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) it is incumbent on the Revenue authorities to look at many factors which are beyond the meticulous paperwork, to reach the satisfaction as to the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant and the genuineness of transaction. He therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on behalf of Revenue. Impugned order is very clear in its import that by looking at the documents the Ld. CIT(A) felt satisfaction as to the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction. Ld. CIT(A) p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry conducted by the AO revealed that the investor companies were found to be non-existent, and the onus to establish the identity of the investor companies, was not discharged by the assessee? whether the assessee discharged their legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the AO? whether the assessee discharged the onus to establish the credit worthiness of the investor companies? did the assessee do anything more than mere mention of the income tax file number of an investor to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act? did the assessee do anything more than mere filing all the primary evidence in discharge of their onus to prove the identity of the investee? etc. 12. Record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
