9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee company and shall make the necessary examination with respect to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. He shall properly examine the documents and financial statement being submitted by the assessee company and pass a speaking order. The grounds raised by the assessee for both the years are remitted to the file of the ld. AO to decide the same in the light of the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 1145 and 1144/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2021 - Mahavir Singh, Vice President And M. Balaganesh, Member (A) For the Appellant : K. Gopal For the Respondents : Murali Mohan ORDER Per M. Balaganesh, ( AM ) These appeals in ITA Nos. 1145/Mum/2017 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant amounting to ₹ 3,46,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act relying on the statements of third parties without providing the Appellant an opportunity to cross examine those persons. Thus, the action of the Ld. A.O. is in breach of principles of natural justice. Thus, the assessment order dated 31/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio. Hence, the same may be quashed. 2. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or rescind any of the grounds of appeal. 2.3. We also find that assessee has filed the petition under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules containing additional evidence comprising of affidavit from one Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we find that the additional grounds raised 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. j) Complete address of EPL k) Bank statements of EPL duly highlighting the relevant investment entry made in the assessee company. l) ITR of EPL for A.Y. 2011-12 m) Balance Sheet and profit and loss account of EPL for F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. 3.2. Apart from all these documents, the assessee also filed written submissions vide letters dated 19/03/2015, 20/03/2015 23/03/2015 before the ld. AO. The furnishing of the aforesaid documents together with the written submissions are not disputed. We find that the ld. AO completely disregarded all the documents furnished by the assessee and proceeded to treat the receipt of share application money as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act merely on the premise that EPL is a company managed and controlled by Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah, who during the course of search had admitted in statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act that he, through 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 sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Representative further submitted that at any time during time of proceeding authorities below, the assessee has never asked for an opportunity to cross examine the said person Shri S.C. Shah. She further submitted that the assessee has managed to obtain affidavit of the said person namely Shri S.C. Shah hence no purpose is being served by asking for cross-examine. Moreover, learned Departmental Representative reiterated that the said investor company has no fund of its own to utilise for share capital and share premium. That it only has fund in the shape of share premium received from other concerns. That this supports the finding of investigation wing, that it is a part of surreptitious routing of money in shape of share capital and share premium. She placed reliance upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No. 1019/2011 dated 22nd November, 2013. 14. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
