9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese set of facts, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly we affirm the same. - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee to explain the case. He also recorded a statement from Shri Kapil Kumar Agarwal, one of the directors of the assessee company on 22.12.2013. The AO also appraised him about the statement given by Shri Mukesh Chokshi. However, Shri KapiKumar Agarwal reiterated the stand that the assessee company has received the share capital amount by way of cheques and expressed his inability to comment upon the stand taken by Shri Mukesh Chokshi. In the reply given to Q. No.12, the director stated that the assessee company had issued shares to four other group companies of Shri Mukesh Chokshi during the financial year 2008-09 and they were not believed by the AO and hence the amounts were added. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the director of the assessee company had offered to produce Shri Mukesh Chokshi, since Shri Mukesh Chokshi had appeared and confirmed the share transactions entered in the immediately preceding year with four of his group companies. Despite the offer, the AO has not asked the assessee to produce Shri Mukesh Chokshi. He further submitted that the assessee has submitted financial statements of M/s Talent infoway Ltd for the financial year ending 31.3.2009 to prove the credit worthiness of the investor. Further the assessee also furnished a confirmation letter obtained from M/s Talent infoway Ltd (page 78 of the paper book) confirming the investment made by it. He submitted that the payments were received in the months of June - August 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finbuild Ltd (ITA No.2821/Del/2009 dt 1.4.15) 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the ld CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that identical addition made in AY 2009- 10 has been deleted by his predecessor. He also noticed that the assessee has discharged the burden placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act by furnishing necessary documents/evidences. The documents furnished by the assessee has been listed out by the ld CIT(A) in page 9 of his order as under:- (a) Identity of shareholder; (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) Creditworthiness of shareholders. (V) The appellant company submitted the following documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions: (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in the case of CIT Vs. Antartica Investments P Ltd (2003)(262 ITR 493)(Delhi) and CIT Vs. Actual Investments Ltd (269 ITR 211)(Delhi), wherein the Court has decided not to interfere, since the assessee hs produced the share application forms along with confirmation letters, copies of their accounts, copies of bank accounts evidencing cheque payments, auditors report etc. 9. Accordingly the ld CIT(A) has come to the following conclusion on this matter:- "(ix) Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances explained above, it can be concluded that the appellant company has discharged the onus cast upon them as per the provisions of section 68. The addition made by the AO is simply on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
