9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:- 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it be held that in absence of incriminating material the assessment order u/s. 153A/143(3) is without and/ or in excess of jurisdiction and bad in law and on the facts and hence be concealed and or annulled and or the additions made in the assessment order be deleted. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 11,31,00,000/- on account of unaccounted money introduced in the books as bogus share / premium u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act is uncalled for and unjustified. This addition should thus be deleted. 4. For that on the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies having dummy directors. 4. The Revenue has strongly supported that the assessment u/s. 153A has been justify treated deleting its total income 70 Taxmann.com 234 (Kerala ) in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Trichur. vs. ST. Francis Clay Decor Tiles, 49 Taxmann.com 98 (Kar) in the case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore, 27, Taxmann.com 167 (AP) in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs. DCIT and 75 Taxmann.com 215 (Kerala) in the case of E.N.Gopakumar vs. CIT (Central) Learned. CIT-DR placed reliance on the Assessing Officer's detailed discussion that the impugned share application money deserves to be added as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. 5. We have given our thoughtful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction does not qualify for section 68 unexplained cash credits additions :- "I have carefully considered the fact of the case, the assessment order and the written submission of the appellant. The appellant has received an amount of Rs. 9,99,99,900/- on account of share capital and share premium from M/s. General Capital and Holding Co.Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad during the year. The AO held that the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction were not proved by the appellant and accordingly made the addition under section 68 of the Act for the above amount. The appellant has submitted that all three ingredients such as, credit worthiness, genuineness and the identity of theshare applicant have been proved and therefore, the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [A] and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the assessee had discharges its basic onus. The investors have confirmed the transactions. Such transactions were carried out through the banking channel. The director of the investing company had also appeared before the Assessing Officer and also confirmed the transactions. The CIT [A] and the Tribunal also did not confirm the Assessing Officer's finding that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. 7. We adopt the above detailed discussions mutatis mutandis and delete the impugned additions made u/s. 68 on merits as well. 8. The assessee's appeal is allowed in above ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
