9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nosoft Pvt. Ltd., assessee has filed letter before A.O. in which assessee has explained that the assessee is making efforts to get the bank statements and in case of urgency the same may be summoned from the concerned Bank of the creditors. The assessee also requested that this creditor may be summoned under section 131 - Since the A.O. did not take any steps in the matter, therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee in respect of the creditor Star Technosoft Pvt. Ltd. A.O. has found that income of the creditor is low as compared to the corresponding transaction, but, their bank statements clearly show they have sufficient means to give loan to the assessee and in case of two of the creditors even their income was higher as compared to the loan given to the assessee. Merely because low income is shown in the return of income by the creditor is no ground to make any addition against the assessee. In the case of creditor Kshitiz Infratech Pvt. Ltd., the A.O. from the balance sheet found that amount of 50 lakh have been shown as advance against the property, but, it is a fact that this creditor has given an amount of 50 lakhs to the assessee, therefore, no furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a total income of ₹ 2,75,250/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was carried-out in the case of Shri Mukesh Gupta Group 21.05.2009. This case was centralized with this Circle of the A.O. by CIT-IV, New Delhi. As the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices, an ex-parte assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of material available on record and the A.O. made the following additions (1) Unexplained Share Application Money - ₹ 9,50,000/- (2) Unexplained Loan - ₹ 1,50,00,000/- (3) Administrative and Financial Expenses unverifiable - ₹ 29,063/-. 3.1. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed. 3.2. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT challenging the validity of the assessment order passed under section 153 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and the additions of ₹ 9,50,000/- and ₹ 1.50 crores, which has decided the appeal of assessee for the assessment year under appeal i.e., 2009-2010 as well as A.Y. 2010-2011 through combined Order dated 27.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JCIT, Central Range, which was also disposed of. The A.O. in order to ascertain the identity and creditworthiness of the above-mentioned creditors and share applicants, issued summons under section 131(1) on 17.05.2018 and the case was fixed for 24.05.2018. In response to summons, none of the above seven parties appeared before A.O. on the given date. Reply from Star Technosoft Pvt. Ltd., was received on 25.05.2018 wherein it enclosed copy of the ITR for A.Ys. 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and copy of the bank book and ledger account of Assessee [M/s. Garima Polymers Private Limited]. No copy of their bank account has been filed. The A.O, therefore, made addition of ₹ 9,50,000/- on account of unexplained share capital and since the unsecured loans received from 5 parties have also not appeared before A.O. in response to the summons under section 131 of the I.T. Act, therefore, same were also treated as unexplained unsecured loans and addition of ₹ 1.50 crores was made. 3.5. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and also raised additional ground of appeal that assessment completed is time barred and that additions on merit are wholly unjustified. The Ld. CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P & H) 4. Pr. CIT vs., Himachal Fibers Ltd., [2018] 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that assessee did not follow the Order of the Tribunal Dated 27.03.2017 and since parties did not appear before A.O, therefore, additions were rightly made against the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue of share application money received and unsecured loans are decided as under. SHARE APPLICATION MONEY : 7. The assessee has received ₹ 3,50,000/- from Smt. Renu Rekhan and ₹ 6 lacs from Smt. Nisha Rekhan on account of share application money. The assessee has filed their confirmation and copy of the ITR, but, in the confirmation it is not mentioned whether share application money have been given in cash or through Bank account. No evidence of their creditworthiness have been filed. Thus, assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share application money received from these two ladies. In the absence of adequate evidence, the authorities below were justified in making the addition. We, therefore, confirm the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue to doubt their creditworthiness was the low income as reflected in their return of income. It was observed by the ITAT that the AO had not undertaken any investigation of the veracity of the documents submitted by the assessee, the departmental appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court." 8.1. In the case of creditor Kshitiz Infratech Pvt. Ltd., the A.O. from the balance sheet found that amount of ₹ 50 lakh have been shown as advance against the property, but, it is a fact that this creditor has given an amount of ₹ 50 lakhs to the assessee, therefore, no further adverse inference could be taken against the assessee. The authorities below have also rejected the explanation of assessee because the creditors did not appear in response to the summons issued by the A.O. Dated 17.05.2018 for the date fix for 24.05.2018. It may be noted that the A.O. issued summons under section 131 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 to enforce the attendance of the creditors at the fag end of the assessment. The first date was fixed for 24.05.2018 only and assessment have been framed on 31.05.2018. Thus, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee rightly contended that no sufficient time wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
