9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital and share premium - CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing that addition u/s.68 cannot be made, because the amount of ₹ 3 crore are being carried forward from earlier years which is evident from letter filed before the Assessing Officer and there has been no increase in paid up share capital - HELD THAT:- CIT-A fact findings has not been controverted by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, the addition made u/s.68 was deleted. On these facts, we do not find any infirmity either in law or on facts because such an addition cannot be made u/s.68 in the relevant Assessment Year. Accordingly, ground no.2 as raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Unsecured loan addition - HELD THAT:- Most of the unsecured loan where in fact paid back during the year and only amount of ₹ 2,88,000/- was received in this year as fresh loan. Ld. CIT(A) examined the genuineness of fresh loan of ₹ 2,88,000/- and found that identity and creditworthiness of the lender M/s. DMC Education Ltd. and also the genuineness of the transaction has been substantiated by the assessee by way of various documentary evidences. The aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT (A) based on proper appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of₹ 27,88,000/- on account of unsecured loan wherein the assessee company failed to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the lender and the additional evidence filed by tire assessee company is not material evidence in support against the said addition. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of tire case, tire Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting tire addition of ₹ 1,31,27,449/- on account of unexplained investments overlooking the fact that the assessee company made investment in new companies at much higher price than its real worth in the previous and the year under consideration and tire details filed as additional evidence by tire assessee company are incomplete and inadequate. 5. (a) The order of tire Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Ved Jain submitted that here the main addition pertains to; i) share capital and share premium of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of natural justice. Accordingly, ground no.1 as raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In so far as the addition of ₹ 3 crores on account of share capital and share premium, it has been brought on record before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT (A) that all the share capital and share premium was received in the books in the earlier year and not in this year which was evident from the balance sheet itself:- Particulars Opening Balance as on 01.04.2011 Closing Balance as on 31.03.2012 Authorized share capital ₹ 89,00,000/- ₹ 89,00,000/- Paid Up Share Capital ₹ 88,55,480/- ₹ 88,55,480/- Share Premium ₹ 6,17,05,920/- ₹ 6,17,05,920/- The assessee has specifically submitted before the Assessing Officer that there was no increase in the paid up share capital of the company and has also not received any share application money in the year under consideration. However, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Education Limited and the remaining amount of ₹ 35,63,790 pertained to all other unsecured loans. During the year all other loans were paid back, apart from DMC Education Limited. In this way it was stated that only an amount of ₹ 2,88,000 pertained to the loans received during the relevant assessment year and the only lender is DMC Education Limited. Evidence under Rule 46A, in this regard were filed in the form of ledger account, confirmation, return of income of DMC Education Limited and Bank statement of DMC Education Limited, showing the out flow of cash. The only objection in this regard raised by the Assessing Officer in his remand report was that the PAN of the DMC limited was not provided. However the Ld. AR in his rejoinder to the remand report clarified that the ITR of DMC Limited has been filed as the additional evidence, whereby the PAN number of the same is duly mentioned. With regard to the A.O s contention in the remand report that cash has been deposited before the payment of this amount. I observe that only an amount of ₹ 30,000 in cash has been deposited before the issue of cheque amounting to ₹ 2,88,000. In view of all these documentary e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions made by the assessee has observed and held as under: This issue is with regard to investment of ₹ 1,31,27,499 made by the assessee in government and other securities. The Assessing Officer made this addition on account of unsecured investments alleging that the investments have been made from the undisclosed sources of income of the assessee. In the documents filed under rule 46A, the assessee explained that the investment have been made in five companies namely Top Class Enterprises Private Limited, RMR Build Com. Private Limited, Mili and Investment Trade Private Limited, Magnolia Advertise Private Limited, Viz-Wise Commerce Private Limited and K.K. Kabra Mail amounting to ₹ 89,284 and viz-wise Commerce Private Limited amounting to ₹ 47,37,625 made in the earlier years and not in the year under consideration. Confirmed copies of ledger account of these two entities were filed as additional evidences. With regard to the remaining investment, evidences in the form of copy of Form No. 2 pursuant to section 75(1) of the companies Act. In this respect of allotment of share and the copy of Bank statement of the respective entities showing the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
