9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both the additions. In our view the assessee has fully discharged its onus and proved the transaction of share application and share premium money as genuine. We further concur with the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no discrepancy in the Gift to the director of the assessee company. The donor is the real brother of recipient of the Gift. In our view the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order after due deliberation on the facts of the case and the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee which we affirm. No contrary fact to take other view is brought over notice. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed. - ITA No. 389/SRT/2017 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2021 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh.S.K.Kabra CA For the Revenue : Miss Anupma Singla Sr. DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by revenue under section 253 of Income tax Act ( Act ) is directed against the orders of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not send any information. The Assessment was getting time-barred, the assessing officer made addition of share application and share premium and amount of gift under section 68 at the time of passing the assessment order on 30th March 2015. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Before learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee file detailed written submission as recorded in para 5 of his order. The assessee explained that assessee company submitted complete details of share application money and shares premium received by the assessee company and clearly submitted that assessee company has not received a single penny as a gift from anyone, but the reasons best known to the assessing officer, he had considered the amount of ₹ 2.90 crore and added in the income of assessee under section 68. It was explained that in fact a gift of ₹ 1.99 crore was received by Sri Jagdish Bodra, one of the shareholder of the assessee company, in his individual capacity. The said shareholder is a regular assessee and filing his regular return of income with the department. The gift received by said share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer and he has not pointed out any discrepancy. The donor is real brother of the gift recipient. The investor has sufficient worth for making the investment with the assessee company. Thus, aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) the revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission of learned Senior departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and the learned authorised representative (AR) for assessee. The ld. Sr DR for the revenue supported the order of the assessing officer. It was submitted that during the assessment the assessing officer doubted the veracity of the transaction and doubted that Girish Bodra s source of income from which he earned ₹ 150 crore. As per his annual statement in Bodra Trading Company (LLC) pertaining to 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2009, the total profit of his companies around 6.4 crore at current exchange rate in which share of the assessee @ 25% is calculated at ₹ 1.6 crore. The assessing officer also relied on various case laws that onus to prove the identity of the creditor, capacity of creditor to advance share application money and genuineness of transaction has not been pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n forwarded to the UAE authorities for seeking information under the exchange of information under Articles of Indo UAE to furnish in information about the UAE based entities, Girish Kumar Bodra, Bodra Trading Company (LLC) and Shyam Trading Company (LLC). So the assessment did not get time barred on 31.03.2014 and time barring date is extended by 12 month, i.e TB on 31.03.2015 . Further, the assessing officer in para 5.3 recorded that no information was received from FT TR New Delhi and the extended time period for passing the assessment order was expiring on 31.03.2015. The assessing officer recorded that he has gone through the reply of assessee but the same is not convincing. The assessee has given a general reply to the notice and failed to furnish the nature and business activity of investor business concerned i.e. Shyam general Trading Co. LLP and Bodra Trading Company. The assessee failed to discharge its onus. The assessing officer treated the share application and share premium of ₹ 90.85 lakhs under section 68 of Act. The assessing also added the gift of ₹ 1.99 Crore at the hand of the assessee. As noted above the assessee file written submission before l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
