9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of share premium/share application money/Unexplained cash credit u/s68 without appreciating the fact that Shri Praveen Kumar Jain was proved to be one of leading entry providers operating in «-Mumbai who could not be produced by the assessee as his witness during the assessment proceedings before the AO. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the C1T(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal which may be necessary." 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- by CIT(A) as added by the AO on account of share application/share premium/unexplai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attern, dividend paid to investors, details of shareholders registers and details of other investments etc. The AO even asked the assessee to produce the investors but could not produce and finally the entire amount of Rs. 75,00,000 was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and added to the income of the assessee. 5. In the appellate proceedings the ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the AO has relied on the report of investigation wing and has failed to bring any evidences on records to show the money trail in respect of the amount received by the assessee. The AO has only considered the statement of Praveen Kumar Jain and other directors but has not considered the retraction in which it was stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plain the nature and source of the credit appearing in the books of accounts. But when the assessee submits the basic information like identification, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors onus is discharged by the assessee AO disbelieve the genuineness, he has to prove otherwise, merely doubting and pointing out some discrepancy is not foundation for discarding the genuineness of the deposit or share money of substance of the matter as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd (2002)265 ITR 795(SC.) and thus deleted he addition. 6. The ld DR relied heavily on the order of AO and submitted that the assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entries racket oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other group directors without considering the fact that the statements were retracted by them. Even the Shri Praveen Kumar Jain did not name the assessee as beneficiary of accommodation entries in his statement. Even the statement of Praveen Kumar Jain was relied by the AO but no cross examination was provided to the assessee despite specific request from the assessee. The ld AR submitted that out of five parties, two parties namely Javda India Impex Ltd and Kush Hindustan Entertainment Ltd were already considered by the coordinate bench of the tribunal Hyderabad in the case of M/S Komal Agrotech Pvt Ltd Vs ITO wherein the Tribunal held that addition made u/s 68 is bad in law. These companies are shareholders in the assessee company. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
