9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onwards only and therefore, the assessee could not be obligated to prove the source of source for AY 2010-11. We concur with the reliance of Ld. CIT(A) on this binding judicial precedent for the said proposition. Since there is allegation by Ld. AO that the three entities were being managed as well as controlled by Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah whereas the said party, in the sworn affidavit, has already denied having advanced any accommodation entry to the assessee. Additions made Ld. AO u/s 68 could not be sustained in the eyes of law and hence, rightly deleted by Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 4558-4559/Mum/2017 And & C.O. Nos.305-306/Mum/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 4558-4559/Mum/2017) - - - Dated:- 22-10-2020 - Shri Amarjit Singh, JM And Hon ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ld. AR For the Revenue : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR ORDER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. The revenue is under appeal against separate appellate orders for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 2011-12 both dated 17/04/2017. It is admitted position that facts are pari-materia the same in both the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redients of Sec. 68 and no addition was made by Ld. AO. Therefore, these being the earlier years and facts being identical, the additions would not be sustainable and the appellate order would require no interference on the facts and circumstances of the case. The copies of the Tribunal order for AY 2012-13 as well as assessment framed consequent thereto have been placed on record. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Shri Michael Jerald, on the other hand, submitted that the investor parties were different in AY 2012-13 and therefore, the said assessment could not form the basis to confirm the deletion of additions. 4.1 We have carefully heard rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including documents placed in the paper-book. The facts on record would show that an assessment was framed for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 17/02/2016 wherein the assessee was saddled with addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for ₹ 195 Lacs. The reassessment proceedings were triggered during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2012-13, wherein it transpired that the assessee received huge share premium of ₹ 195 Lacs during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d financial statements. Upon perusal of the same, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had not only proved the identity of the share applicant but also their respective creditworthiness to advance share application money to the assessee. 4.4 However, Ld. AO observed that the aforesaid three entities were being managed controlled by one Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah and Mr. Devang Dinesh Chandra Master, alleged bogus entry providers. Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah was subjected to search proceedings on 13/04/2013 wherein, in sworn statement u/s 132(4), he admitted that various listed companies were being managed and controlled by him. He also admitted that these entities were used for proving accommodation entries of share capital, share premium, share application and unsecured loans. The three entities who had advanced share application money to the assessee formed part of that group. 4.5 In the said background, Ld. AO proceeded to make an addition of share application money u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit. The assessee assailed the same by submitting that the transactions were genuine and there was no record whatsoever which indicated that the assessee had enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial to dislodge the same. However, except for relying on a third-party statement, which was never confronted to the assessee, there is no other material to support the conclusion that the said transactions were unexplained cash credit. No opportunity of cross-examination was ever provided to the assessee and in fact, no further investigations were done by Ld. AO to support his conclusion. Therefore, additions could not be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. As rightly noted by Ld. CIT(A), in terms of the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. (ITA No. 1613 of 2014 dated 20/03/2016), proviso to Sec.68 requiring assessee to prove the source of source was applicable only from AY 2013-14 onwards only and therefore, the assessee could not be obligated to prove the source of source for AY 2010-11. We concur with the reliance of Ld. CIT(A) on this binding judicial precedent for the said proposition. 7. Proceeding further, we find that the assessee was saddled with similar additions in AY 2012-13 but the same were deleted by Ld. CIT(A). Upon further appeal to Tribunal, the appellate order was set aside and Ld.AO was directed to reframe th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee has been saddled with similar additions, being share premium received from certain entities allegedly being controlled by Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah. The assessment has been framed on similar lines. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the same, inter-alia, by observing that ld. AO did not establish any connection of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah with the listed entities and the additions were merely on the basis of third-party statement. As against this, the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share application by furnishing complete details and documentary evidences which is also evident from similar documents placed before us in the paper-book for this year. Aggrieved, the revenue in in further appeal before us. The assessee has filed similar cross-objections which is merely supportive of impugned order. 10. Since the facts are pari-materia the same, our adjudication for AY 2010-11 shall mutatis-mutandis apply to this year also. The impugned order would not require any interreference on our part. The revenue s appeal as well as assessee s cross-objections stands dismissed. Conclusion 11. The revenue s appeals as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
