9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') towards unexplained share application money received by the assessee. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 36,970/- which was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of assessee was reopened after the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department vide letter no. DGIT (Inv.)/Information/PJ/2013-14 dated 07.03.2014 that following a search conducted on Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and related entities on 01.10.2013 it has come to light that assessee has availed bogus share application entries from various parties. A list of such entries is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequently added Rs. 1,90,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act comprising of Rs. 55,00,000/- from Alka Diamond India Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 45,00,000/- from Kush Hindustan Ent. Ltd., Rs. 40,00,000/- from Nakshatra Business P. Ltd. and Rs. 50,00,000/- from Triangular Infocom by framing assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 30.03.2016. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) while deleting the disallowance noted that the assessee has submitted all the papers, documents ,evidences to establish the identities and creditworthiness of the investors and also proved the genuineness of the transactions. The learned CIT(A) noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has filed various eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013] 145 ITD 240 (Bombay), CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bombay) and CIT vs Daulat Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC) and decided the appeal in favour of the assessee by holding that assessee has provided all the evidences to the Assessing Officer and thus discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions and identity and creditworthiness of the investors, however, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any corroborative evidences on record to prove to the contrary and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act. 5. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that undisputedly assessee has taken share application money from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
