9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 1144/Mum/2017 for A.Yrs.2011-12 2012-13 arise out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai in appeal Nos.CIT(A)-52/IT/DC-CC-4(3)/19/2015-16 CIT(A)-52/IT/DC-CC-4(3)/20/2015-16 respectively dated 07/12/2016 6/12/2016 respectively (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/03/2015 31/03/2015 respectively by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2011-12:- 1. The ld. C.I.T(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. D.C.I.T by account of Share Application Money (Share Capital) holding the same as non-genuine. 2. The Ld. C.I.T(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Ld. D.C.I.T of treating the Share Application Money (Share Capital) as bogus and thereby erred in making addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- 3.The Appellant reserves the right to add, to alter and to amplify the Grounds of Appeal. 2.1. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee go to the root of the matter and does not involve verification of any facts and hence, we deem it fit to admit the same and take up for the purpose of adjudication. We also find that the affidavit from Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah filed by the assessee in the form of additional evidence under rule 29 of the ITAT rules deserves to be admitted as the entire addition towards share capital has been made for the A.Yrs.2011-12 and 2012-13 in the sums of ₹ 50,00,000/- and ₹ 3,46,00,000/- respectively, by placing reliance on the statement of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah. 3.1. We find that the assessee was in receipt of share capital of ₹ 50 lakhs in the A.Y.2011-12 from Emporis Projects Ltd., which was stated to be a company belonging to Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah. The ld. AO had observed that the premises of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah was covered u/s.132 of the Act and during the course of search proceedings, it was revealed that he, through his various concerns / entities has been engaging in providing accommodation entries in the form of loans, share capital etc., against some commission income. The ld. AO also observed that during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his entities / concerns is engaged in providing accommodation entries to various companies in the form of bogus share capital and bogus loans etc. Merely based on this statement from a third party i.e. Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah, the ld. AO proceeded to add the said receipt as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) for A.Y.2011-12. 3.3. We find similar addition was made by the ld. AO by treating the receipt of share application money of ₹ 3,46,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act for A.Y.2012-13 in respect of monies received by the assessee from Parmeta Industries Ltd and Speciality Papers Ltd., both companies allegedly belonging to Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah. This action of the ld. AO was also upheld by the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y.2012-13. 3.4. Both the parties before us stated that both the issues in dispute in original grounds as well as in additional grounds are already covered in the decision of this Tribunal in the case of sister concerns of the Jajoo Enterprises Ltd. Vs. DCIT (sister concern of the assessee) in ITA No. 1142/Mum/2017 dated 27/10/2020 for A.Y.2012-13 wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Upon careful consideration we find that this addition for share capital and share premium has been done by the Assessing Officer upon finding of the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department that assessee was receipt of bogus accommodation entries from Shri S.C. Shah Group of companies. The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s. 133(6) to the assessee company. There was no response from the said company. However, learned Counsel of the assessee submits before us that at no point of time the assessee was asked to produce directors of the investor company. That if the same was done the assessee would have made necessary endeavor to bring representative/director of the company before authorities below. We find that notice by the authorities below issued u/s. 133(6) has remained unresponded. Further the assessee has submitted certain documents including financial statement of the investor company, for which the authorities below have observed that these are part of surreptitious routing of money and investor company was not doing proper business. In our considered opinion for addition u/s. 68 as undisclosed income following three ingredients have to be examined :- (i) Genuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
