9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no adverse inference to be drawn if the shareholders failed to respond to the notice issued by the A.O. - Therefore, merely because the same Directors did not appear in the case of assessee would not be a ground to have an adverse inference against the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of above decisions, we do not find any justification to sustain the addition under section 68 and addition under section 69C - Decided in favour of assessee. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT:- As in the light of this decision, the Order of the Tribunal in the case of ASN Polymers Pvt. Ltd.,[ 2020 (12) TMI 1199 - ITAT DELHI] cannot be considered favourable in favour of the assessee. We, therefore, following the Order of the Tribunal in the case of INS Finance Investment P. ltd., (supra) confirm the reopening of the assessment in the matter. This ground of appeal of Assessee is dismissed. - ITA.No.3562/Del./2019 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2021 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Advocate, Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate For the Revenue : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 45 lakhs from Investor Company. The assessee attended the proceedings before A.O. and submitted as under : That Prraneta Industries Ltd. (now known as Aadhaar India Ltd) is a public Limited Company and presently listed in Bombay Stock Exchange hence identity of shareholder is established. That during the F.Y. 2009-10 Prraneta Industries Ltd has declared income of ₹ 173.55-lacs hence amount received as share-capital is out of tax paid money. That shares are issued at fair market value of the company not at huge share premium. Equity shares having face value of ₹ 10/- were issued at ₹ 50/- which is fair market value as per the audited financial statements of the company. That Shri Shirish C. Shah neither Director nor shareholder of Praneta Industries Ltd. 3.1. The A.O. however did not accept the contention of assessee and found that during the course of search and survey operation statements of Shri Shirish C. Shah, Shri Kumar Raichand Madan, Shri Chandrank Padmasni Kamani, Shri Rajan Kachaliya were recorded who have explained the modus operandi as to how to provide accommodation entries. The A.O. considering the modus operandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee have been curtailed in filing proper objections before A.O. He has referred to PB-20 in which the assessee filed another objection before A.O. Dated 09.08.2017 against the re-assessment proceedings in which it is clearly clarified that assessee filed copy of ITR of Investor Company along with its audited balance-sheet and Director s Report, Certificate of Incorporation and proof of trading of shares at BSE. He has referred to PB-49 to 85 which are the documents filed before A.O. in respect of the fact that assessee received genuine share capital/premium which are copy of the confirmation, of ITR, copy of Board Resolution, copy of share application along with Share Application Form, copy of Master Data, Certificate of Incorporation and evidence in respect of listing of shares at BSE of Investor Company along with their ITR and balancesheet of the Investor. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that letter of Shri Omprakash Khandelwal, Director of the Investor Company retracted from his statement, therefore, there is no case for reopening of the assessment against the assessee. 4.1. He has submitted that ITAT, Indore Bench in the group case of ACIT, Central Circle-18, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal/premium from M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd., based on the same statement of Shri Shirish C. Shah and Shri Omprakash Khandelwal. He has, therefore, submitted that the issue of the assessee is covered by these decisions on identical facts. He has submitted that since statements of Shri Shirish C. Shah and Shri Omprakash Khandelwal have not been provided to the assessee and was not subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the assessee, therefore, their statements cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. The A.O. has not brought any material on record to rebut the documentary evidences filed by assessee, therefore, reopening of the assessment as well as addition on merit is wholly unjustified. 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that at the time of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, the A.O. should have prima facie some material to form a belief and at that stage the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not required and relied upon Judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., vs., ITO, Nagpur [1991] 191 ITR 662 (SC), Shri Krishna Pvt. Ltd., etc., vs., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at BSE along with ITR and balance-sheet of the Investor Company. The assessee explained before A.O. that the Investor Company is a Public Limited Company and presently listed in BSE. This fact is not doubted by the A.O. The assessee also submitted before A.O. that the Investor Company has declared income of ₹ 173.55 lakhs and hence amount received as share capital would prove the creditworthiness of the Investor. Copy of the acknowledgment of ITR of the Investor Company for the assessment year under appeal is filed at page-64 of the PB which supports the explanation of assessee that the Investor Company has declared income of ₹ 1,73,55,274/-. The balance-sheet of the Investor Company also support such fact and PB-71 shows the Investor Company has share capital of ₹ 22.57 crores and reserve and surplus of ₹ 18.84 crores. Thus, the Investor Company has sufficient funds and income that it had capacity to make investment in assessee-company. The Investor Company is assessed to tax and listed Company and Public Limited Company, therefore, its identity is not in dispute. The assessee has also proved creditworthiness of the Investor Company and that entire t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g them confidential in nature. The moment A.O. says that their statements and other material are confidential in nature would mean that A.O. has nothing to confront these material to the assessee for the purpose of assessee s defence. Therefore, such material shall have to be excluded from consideration. 6.1. We may also note that ITAT Delhi C-Bench, Delhi in the case of INS Finance Investment P. Ltd., New Delhi vs., ITO, Ward-12(3), New Delhi in ITA.No.9266/Del./2019 for the A.Y. 2010-2011 vide Order Dated 26.10.2020 considered identical issue on identical facts on account of share capital/premium received from M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd., through Shri Shirish C. Shah based on his statement and statement of Shri Omprakash Khandelwal, confirmed the Orders of the authorities below as regards reopening of the assessment, however, the Tribunal has deleted the entire addition on merits. The Order of the Tribunal in paras 16 to 37 is reproduced as under : 16. Now coming to the issue of addition of ₹ 2,50,00,000/- added u/s. 68 being share capital received during the year from M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. (now known as M/s. Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd.), ld. counsel sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pg 81-91 to establish the creditworthiness in the hands of investor. Reference was also made to judgments of High Courts and coordinate benches in support of the proposition that once the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor is proved, the provisions of section 68 does not apply. 19. In response to above, the Ld. DR made elaborate submissions and supported the finding recorded by assessing officer and CIT (A). It was argued that Investor Company does not possess creditworthiness to make investment of ₹ 2.50 crores in Assessee Company. It was also submitted that shares of the company has been issued at premium which is unjustified and creates doubt over the genuineness of the transaction. Further, the Ld. CIT DR also countered that there is no requirement for affording opportunity of cross examination of person whose statements are being relied upon since same is secondary material and as such there is no contravention of principles of natural justice. Reference was made decision of Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron Steel P. Ltd. 412 ITR 161 (SC) and other revenue favoring decisions of High Courts and ITAT. However, the Ld. DR fairly conceded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ores. The party is showing healthy profit before tax of ₹ 1,72,12,447/- and has reserves of over ₹ 18 crores in the balance sheet. Let us now come to third and the most important element which is genuineness of transaction. We note that the assessing officer has primarily relied upon the statement of Sh. Omprakash Khandelwal in reaching the conclusion that M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. (now known as M/s. Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd.) is an accommodation entry provider. We also note that assessment order is absolutely silent about any enquiry carried out by the assessing officer with respect to M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. and no attempt has been made to independently verify and bring on record material to establish the alleged collusiveness or any connivance between appellant and investor, if any. 22. The entire edifice of the Assessing Officer is the reliance placed by him on the statement of Shri Om Prakash Khandelwal which though assessee has claimed was not provided to the assessee nor any opportunity of cross-examination was offered and the statement of Shri Shirish Shah for which assessee has objected that same has been recorded without opportunity of cross-e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of Balance Sheets, Copy of ITR Ledger Account etc. Investor companies confirmed the investment made by them in the share capital of assessee-company. Page-13 11. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 02.02.2016 wherein it was alleged that assessee company received accommodation entries of ₹ 55 Crores from five listed companies. This allegation was based on the statements of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS), Shri Chandan Kumar Singh (CKS), Shri Kumar Raichand Madan (RKM), Shri Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal (OAK) and affidavits of Shri Jils Raichand Madan, Smt. Jyoti Munver, and Shri D. U. Munver and on other material found in the search of SCS and Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd. Statement of SCS and his employee CKS, being third parties were recorded during the course of search on SCS. Page-17 14. It is also notice that during the proceedings on 12.02.2016, the assessing Officer directed the assessee company to produce the Directors of the investor companies and consequently on 19.02.2016, the assessee company produced Shri Somabhai Sunderbhai Meena (SS Meena), director of major investor company namely Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd. Who cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provide share valuation report. He also stated that Board of Directors after considering the entire scenario decided to invest in equity shares of Bharat Securities (P) Ltd. He also stated that MOU was executed prior to investment. He also stated that there was no question of providing any accommodation entries to Bharat Securities. He further stated that his earlier statement was recorded under fear and pressure. An opportunity to cross examine was granted to the assessee company which was availed by the assessee company. 26. After recording the statements of the said witnesses, the CIT(A) forward copies of all statements to the AO for his comments. The AO had perused such statements in extensor and sent his comments on each and every question and answer recorded in respect of each and every statement. The AO did not raise any objection on the contents of these statements. He almost accepted all the factual position. He also agreed with the nature of the business of investor companies. The AO almost accepted the contents of the statements. However, he opined that there was mismatch between the two statements, such statements may not be relied upon and also statements sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Source of the source has also been explained and found to be correct. In these circumstances, CIT(A) found herself in agreement with the statements recorded by herself. It was held that detailed statements were recorded and all the five investor companies have admitted the investment. CIT(A) finally held that investment made by five listed companies in the share capital of the appellant company was genuine and there was no question of providing and taking any accommodation entries by the assesse company. 29. After considering the statement of Sh. Somabhai Sunderbhai Meena, Director of major investor company namely M/s. Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd. which was recorded by the AO during assessment proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) arrived to the following findings. The appellant company had produced one director of Aadhaar Ventures namely Sh. Somabhai Sunderbhai Meena before the AO during assessment proceedings. He confirmed that his company had invested a sum of ₹ 40.75 crores in the share capital of the appellant company in FY 2011-12 and 2012-13. He produced the books of accounts of the company and was thoroughly examined by the AO. This investment was found recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales tax, bank interest, staff salaries etc. The himself examined the director of major shareholder Aadhaar Ventures namely Somabhai Sunderbhai Meena and also examined the books of accounts produced by him during the course of assessment. It is very pertinent to note here that even the AO could not find discrepancies with the books of accounts or the documents produced or the fact of investment and source thereof. The AO had never disagreed with the various evidences and documents submitted before him by the director of the investor company. In the presence of enormous evidences it is very difficult to hold that these companies are paper companies. 43. From the order of the Ld. CIT(A) it is also apparent that on the conclusion that the entry providing companies failed to prove the genuineness of their source of the investment made in Bharat Securities Pvt. Ltd. including the amount of premium after considering the submissions of both the sides and relevant documentary evidence the CIT(A) held as under: All the listed companies have given the required evidences to prove the source of their investments in Bharat Securities Pvt.Ltd. One of the major investing companies ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stment made in the share capital the assessee BSPL ( PB-345-355), bank statement ( PB-336-343 839-846), copy of ledger account of the assesse in the books of investor company ( PB-344) and reply dtd. 14.07.2014 in response to summons dtd. 25.06.2014 issued by ADIT (Inv.)-Delhi furnished by said company ( PB 754 to 831). Reply dtd. 06.08.2014 field by the Sh. Jai Rai Cahnd Madan, in his personal capacity as a director in response to the letter dtd. 30.07.2014 issued by the ADIT (Inv.) Delhi under section 131(1 A) PB 32, Assessment order page No. 129). Reply filed dtd. 06.08.2014 by Smt. Jyoti Dhiresh Munver, director in her personal capacity as a director in response to the letter dtd. 30.07.2014 as issued by the ADIT (Inv.), Delhi, letter dtd. 19.11.2015 issued by the AO duly served on investor company ( page No. 33 34 of CIT(A) order and reply dtd. 26.11.2015 filed by investor company ( PB-834-883), reply dtd. 12.02.2016 filed by Investor company duly confirming investment made by it in the share of the assessee company along with relevant documents ( page No. 144 171 of assessment order) in support of the claim that identity and credit worthiness of investor and genuinen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable to see any valid reason to disbeliever or discard statement recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) and thus we hold that the first appellate authority was right in considering he same in right prospective and hence we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) as noted above. 89. We find that Sh. Somabhai Sunderbhai Meena, the present director of Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd., the investor company appeared on 19.02.2016 before the AO with books of accounts and his detailed statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act, wherein he has duly confirmed the investment made in the shares capital in the assesse company. The copy of his statement is placed at paper book page No. 230 to 243. We further find that in response to summons under section 131 of the Act, issued by the CIT(A) invoking his power under section 250(4) of the Act, Sh. Jils Raichand Madan, along with books of accounts duly appeared before the CIT(A) and duly confirmed the investment made in the shares of the assesse company, in his statement recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Refer paper book page No. 244 to 256 and page No. 132 to 142 of order of CIT(A). Similarly, Sh. Omprakash A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has duly discharged her obligation by conducting examination of the key person involved by way recording statement and examination of books of accounts. These evidence brought on record proved and established the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and investor and genuineness of transaction of above said five investor companies. Whereas the AO has not brought on record anything contrary and made addition by merely holding that the said subscriber as non- genuine on the basis of inquiry conducted in the case of third party who has not whispered any word against the assesse company. Therefore, no addition on account of share application money can be made particularly when shares are allotted and transaction are through banking channel and concerned party relied to summon issued by investigation wing and also by the AO conforming the investment made in the BSPL. 93. We further find that the Ld. CIT(A), during the course of first appellate proceeding in exercising powers mandated in the section 250(4) of the Act has rightly decided to summons all the ten person out of which except two namely Smt. Jyoti Dhiresh Munver and Sh. Manish Mir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) accordingly, her findings are upheld. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal of Revenue are dismissed. 23. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Department before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Chain House International (supra) wherein the Hon ble High Court had analyzed and dealt with the statement of Shri Omprakash Khandelwal and genuineness of M/s. Prrenata Industries in detail. It has been also pointed out by the ld. counsel that SLP filed by the Revenue against the said order of the Hon ble High Court stands dismissed. The relevant observation and the finding of Their Lordships are reproduced hereunder: 16. Shri Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal, the then Director of Aaadhaar Ventures (I) Ltd appeared before appellate authority (A) and his statement was recorded wherein he stated that his company was not engaged in any business of providing any accommodation entries. He also stated that Shrish Chandrakant Shah was not controlling the business of his company. He was only a financial consultant. He stated that his company was engaged in the business of textiles, finance and investment. He produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In have also found that during the course of search at the appellant company and also on its associate companies and residence of the directors when every corner of the house was searched, not a single paper, evidence or record was unearthed by the search team which support the allegation of generation of any unaccounted cash and transfer of such cash for the purpose of obtaining accommodation entries. In the absence of any evidence of such cash transfer, the AO was unjustified in holding that the appellant company had routed back its own unaccounted cash. In this connection it would be also relevant to state that during the process of examining these investor companies I have found that there is no transfer of cash from the appellant company to these investor companies or to anybody else for this purpose. I hold that there is no generation of cash outside the books of account and also there is no transfer of any such cash by te appellant company to anyone else and, therefore, I old that there is no accommodation entry and the share capital received is genuine. 21. The appellate authority (A) held that the assessee company was not connected with the money trial and the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is company with reference to the share capital invested in Bharat Securities. The AO also required him to send certain documents. Consequently copy of resolution, shareholding pattern, copy of share certificate, copy of MOU, copy of arbitration award, copy of due diligence report, copy of share valuation report and legal notice were sent by his company vide letter dated 18.3.2016. The AO never disagreed with the contents of objection was that Somabhai was not a director of the company at the time of making investment in Bharat Securities. Now two other directors of the same company namely Shri Jils Raichand Madan and Shri Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal appeared before me and their statements were recorded. Both of them were directors of Aaadhaar Ventures at the time of making the investment in Bharat Secuirties. Their statements have already been discussed in the earlier para and to avoidany repetition I simply want to reiterate that the present statements given by both the directors of Aaadhaar Ventures before me are totally confirmatory and corroborative to the earlier statement of Somanbhai Sunderbahai Meena Recorded by the AO during the assessment proceedings. 27. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h bank channel and furnished complete details of bank statements, copy of accounts and complied with notices issued and the directors of the subscriber company also appeared with books of accounts before the appellate authority and confirmed the investment made by them with the assessee company, therefore, the identity and creditworthiness of investor and genuineness of transaction of the share applicant has been proved in the light of the ratio laid down by the M.P. High Court, Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and were of the opinion that the onus cast upon the assessee as provided under Section 68 of the Act has been duly discharged by the assessee the identity of the share subscriber, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is not to be doubted. The learned ITAT considered the case of the each company in great detail in paras 85 to 110 of the impugned order and recorded its finding. The aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the ITAT are based on the material available on record which is a finding based on appreciation of evidence on record. 52. Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial decision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead, the issue was whether the amount invested by the share applicants were from legitimate sources. The objective of Section 68 is to avoid inclusion of amount which are suspect. Therefore, the emphasis on genuineness of all the three aspects, identity, creditworthiness and the transaction. What is disquieting in the present case is when the assessment was completed on 31.12.2007, the investigation report which was specifically called from the concerned department in Kolkata was available but not discussed by the AO. Had he cared to do so, the identity of the investors, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the share applicants would have been apparent. Even otherwise, the share applicants' particulars were available with the AO in the form of balance sheets income tax returns, PAN details etc. While arriving at the conclusion that he did, the AO did not consider it worthwhile to make any further enquiry but based his order on the high nature of the premium and certain features which appeared to be suspect, to determine that the amount had been routed from the assessee's account to the share applicants' account. As held concurrently by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction stood established. 26. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. NRA Iron and Steel P. Ltd. 412 ITR 161 (SC) as relied upon by ld. DR and other revenue favouring decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts and not applicable. In fact, in the case of NRA Iron and Steel (Supra), the assessing officer conducted detailed enquiry and identity of the parties was under serious doubt. However, nothing of that sort has done in this case. 27. Thus in the light of finding recorded in aforesaid para and respectfully following the decision of Hon ble MP High Court, we are of concerned view that appellant has discharged the onus u/s 68 to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investor company M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. (now known as M/s. Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd.). Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to delete the addition u/s 68. Ground No. 4 is allowed. 28. The Ground No. 3 and 5 are taken together as they deal with addition of aggregate share capital of ₹ 5,12,40,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. It is a case of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 where reopening was made in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f proceedings u/s 147 gets laid down and it is not open to assessing officer to make roving and fishing enquiry and arbitrarily enhance the scope of reassessment proceedings as per whims and fancies. It was further contended that Explanation 3 to section 147 does not provide unfettered power to assessing officer to go beyond the reasons and same has to be read in conjunction with principle provision of section 147, 148 and 151. The upshot of argument of Ld. AR is that for making any further enquiry or addition, the following conditions must be satisfied: i. There must be some tangible material coming to the notice of assessing officer during the course of assessment which shows escapement of income in respect of some other item (other than one referred in the reasons). ii. The assessing officer must record reasons for including such other item in the scope of ongoing reassessment proceedings u/s 147 iii. Fresh approval must be obtained u/s 151 and notice u/s 148 must also be issued. 33. In support of above proposition, the ld. AR has relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT[2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del) and coordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiation of the proceedings and the notice, he would be competent to make assessment of those items. However, the Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer that on assuming jurisdiction under section 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of the escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before the Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under section 148. 36. Similar view is taken by the ITAT, Mumbai G Bench in the case of Juliet Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs., ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai (supra). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that A.O. has recorded non-existing, incorrect and wrong facts in the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The A.O. did not applied his mind to the report of Investigation Wing. The A.O. merely believed report of Inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on the basis of some information which was has already been affirmed by us. However, in respect of other items, the assessing officer himself made random enquiry which is absolute misuse of power in the context of scope of section 147 as well as settled legal principle. 36. It is further noted that there is no iota of material or information with regard to share capital of ₹ 5,12,40,000/- received from 18 parties. In fact the assessing officer gathered the information after calling for bank statement from the bank as evident from para 10 of the assessment order. It is classic case of roving enquiry where the assessing officer is exceeding its jurisdiction in total disregard to scheme and intent of section 147 of the act. Such action of the assessing officer not only renders the purpose of approval u/s 151 otiose but also strikes at the root of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that assessing officer was not justified in expanding the scope of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 without following the due course and as such the addition of ₹ 5,12,40,000/- is in the teeth of provisions of section 147 of the Act and liable to deleted. As a result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... saction in the matter. Therefore, there were no justification for the authorities below to make or confirm the addition against the assessee under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. D.R. relied upon Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron Steel Pvt. Ltd., (supra) which is also considered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of INS Finance Investment P. Ltd., (supra) and this decision is also distinguishable on facts because the Investor Company has declared income of ₹ 173.55 Lacs in the return of income for the assessment year under appeal, therefore, Investor Company would not have meager income in assessment year under appeal. The other decisions relied upon by the Ld. D.R. are distinguishable on facts as mentioned above. The Ld. D.R. also referred the Order of the SEBI Dated 04.09.2017 in the case of M/s. Kavit Industries Limited, in which name of the Investor Company mentioned, but, there is no reference to the case of assessee-company for receiving any accommodation entry from the Investor Company. Rather the issue of receipt of share capital/ premium have been examined in detail by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal as well as Hon ble Delhi B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
