9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plained share capital and premium. 2. The brief facts and background of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of share trading, future option, commodities, consultancy services, and hotel industry. The assessee-company is under construction of hotels at Mumbai at Senapati Bapat Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee had filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) on 26.09.2011 declaring income of Rs. 53,21,14,645/- which were duly assessed u/s. 143(1) vide order dated 27.1.2012. On 22.11.2011, the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department Conducted Search & Seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on different concerns and persons of Gurinder Jit Singh Group. In the said search operations, the case of the appellant company was also covered under search u/s. 132 of the Act. The jurisdiction over the case before the search action was with assessing officer in the charge of CIT, Delhi-II, New Delhi. Consequent upon search operations, the case of the appellant was transferred and centralized with the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-23, New Delhi on 03.12.2012 by the CIT, Delhi-II, New Delhi u/s 127 of the Act. The Dy. CIT, Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified by him. The assessee-company was also required to submit all the requisite details like copies of their audited reports, audited financial accounts, i.e., balance sheet, profit and loss account and source of investment made in the assessee-company, details of business activities and reason for investing in assessee's company with huge premium along with copy of bank account. In response, the assessee had submitted all the requisite details as asked by him along with return of income of the parties. The Assessing Officer noticed following details of investments shown by these companies as on 31.3.2010 and 31.3.2011. Name of Company Investment shown 31/03/2010 Investment shown 31/03/2011 Difference M/s. TVH Trading Company (P) Ltd. 48,52,00,000 48,52,02,000 2000 M/s. Topgrain Mercantile P. Ltd. 47,04,00,000 47,04,09,000 900 M/s. Godsend Biotech Limited 41,88,50,000 46,15,22,000 4,26,72,000 5. Thus, Assessing Officer deduced that these companies did not have substantial increase in the investment as compared to the preceding year and also it is not verifiable whether these companies have made investment in the assessee-company. He further noticed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mium against M/s. Topgrain Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Godsend Bio Tech and M/s. TVH Trading Pvt. Ltd. is an unexplained credit. Accordingly, he made the addition u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act. 7. Before the CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed submission and submitted that all the requisite details and information along with supporting documents were filed before the Assessing Officer. In sums and substance, the assessee's arguments have been incorporated by the CIT (A) in the following manner:- i) During the assessment proceedings, the appellant has filed following documents to Assessing Officer establish the genuineness of share transactions and identity & creditworthiness of these impugned share holders: a) Photocopy of share application forms, duly filled in, as submitted by the investing companies to the assessee company, while applying for shares. b) Certified true copy of Board resolutions passed by Board of Directors of the respective companies in respect of investment to be made in the shares of the assessee company. c) Photocopies of PAN Cards of all the investing companies as issued by the Income Tax Department, Govt. of India. d) Audit reports alongwith pho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorized representative of few companies as accepted by the Ld. assessing officer also. The Ld. assessing officer has not issued any summons / commissions to these directors, though specifically requested by the appellant. Further, the assessing officer has requested to produce the directors with adequate evidences. The assessing officer while giving the opportunity to produce the directors has not mentioned what documents are required by him to establish the transactions in addition to what was already submitted. iii) On the enquiry made by Kolkata investigation directorate about none existence of M/s BBCCPL Ld. AR has made written submission as under:- a) In para 5.1 at page 7 of the order, the Assessing Officer has referred to his efforts through Investigation Wing, Kolkata to get the business activities of M/s BBCCPL, Kolkata verified. He has also referred to the Wing's report to the effect the said concern does not exist at the given address. From this report, Ld. AO presumed that M/s BBCCPL was "a mere paper entity". It is submitted that the said BBCCPL, Kolkata is the short name of M/s Bridge & Building Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., which is actually one of the 7 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any report of the Investigation Wing without confronting the same to the assessee, and without seeking its explanation thereon. This report was never confronted to us. Deciding any issue on the basis of an un-confronted report/evidence would be against all canons of natural justice. iv) Ld. AR argued that the assessing officer has wrongly relied on the bank enquiry to prove that the alleged share holder has received fund from various company which in turn received money from layers of concerns and concluded on that basis that all these layers of transfer of fund that these accommodation entries in nature & not a genuine transaction. Ld. AR argued that all the transactions were through banking channels, i.e. through cheques. Therefore, the fund flow is precisely traceable. The assessing officer nowhere has found that there is cash deposit in bank accounts in any alleged layer of transfer of fund. If there would have been cash deposit in any bank accounts in any layer that could have suspected the plough back of unaccounted money of the appellant. The appellant in his reply in response to letter of the assessing officer dt. 10.03.2014 has made submission that the entire transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany. b) The assessing officer has relied on the enquiry conducted by the investigation wing of Kolkata that M/s BBCCPL is not any existing company, which has paid the share capital & share premium on behalf of M/s. Topgarain Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. c) Therefore, concluded that these share capital introduced are nothing but. In support of this contention Ld. assessing officer has further tabulated the income as per profit & loss accounts of these share holders which are very meager compared to the share investment made. d) The appellant has failed to produce the directors of these share holders company and applied judicial pronouncements of various courts including the case of N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. cited supra & other decision where it has been held that the assessee being a Pvt. Ltd. company & share are issued to known person & not though public offer, the controlling person of such share holders are within the arm's length of the assessee and the assessee has to produce such controlling person to discharge the onus u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 8. Thereafter, he has summarized the arguments of the assessee in the following manner: a) The appellant has submitted during the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dently in response to notice u/s 133(6) in the office of the assessing officer. The Ld. assessing officer has made no enquiry to disprove the evidence filed independently by these companies at the new addresses. Therefore, the assessing officer has not found any error in the submission made by the appellant. In that case, the onus to disprove the details filed by the appellant lied with the assessing officer. In that circumstance, onus was not on the assessee to produce the director of these share applicant companies. The directors & the investing companies are stationed outside Delhi namely in Kolkata & Mumbai. The assessing officer has not issued such commission to enforce attendance. Under these circumstances reliance of the assessing officer to discharge onus to produce directors u/s 68 as per various judgment such as N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. cited supra & other decision are misplaced. In those cases, the assessing officer has given adverse finding on the initial evidences produced by the appellant, then onus shifted back to the assessee. f) Ld AR argued that total investing shown in the balance sheet in alleged share holder companies as on 31.03.2010 in alleged share holder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently in any layer of the fund circulation. All the transfer of fund is through bank transfer from separate entities i.e. identifiable entities & no person has been examined to get any adverse inference. In that case transfer of fund at various layers does not prove that these transfer of fund amounts to accommodation entries. Similarly, declaration of small profit by the share holding companies relied by the Assessing Officer to prove non genuineness of the transaction is also not convincing as these share investments are reflected in the balance sheet which explains the source, & these balance sheet have been filed with the Income Tax Department. The appellant has filed all relevant documentary evidence in support genuineness of share capital and creditworthiness of share holders. The assessing officer as per his version has issued notice u/s 133(6) to investor. The assessing officer only says that reply is not received in time. There is no adverse finding even after the issuance of notice u/s 133(6) i.e. either these notices are returned back or not replied. Therefore, without disproving these evidences filed by appellant onus will not shift back to the appellant. Under these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department, Govt. of India. d) Audit reports alongwith photocopies of final accounts i.e. Balance sheets, Profit & Loss accounts, complete with the schedules of the investing companies. e) Photocopies of Memorandum and Articles of Association of the said companies, with certificates of incorporation. f) Bank account statements of the investing companies for the relevant period. g) Allotment Advice issued by the assessee company, giving details of the allotment of shares against the share application money received, indicating Folio No. Certificate Number, number of shares allotted, complete with distinctive numbers and amount received against such share allocation. h) Photocopy of acknowledgment portion of Income tax returns (ITRs) alongwith statement of income of the investing companies. i) Fresh addresses (wherever applicable) of the investing companies for facilitating direct correspondence with them on independent level by the Department. j) Copies of Equity Share Certificates issued to the investors, k) Copy of return of allotments (of shares) filed by the assessee company with the ROC in Form 2 (Pursuant to section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956). l) Copie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application form, duly filled in and signed by the investing companies. (vii) Copy of audit report as signed by the qualified Auditors in respect of all the investing companies. (viii) Copies of duly audited final accounts viz. Balance Sheets as on 31.03.2011 and P & L accounts for the period 2010-11 (relevant to A.Y. 2011-12) (ix) Copies of their respective Income tax returns for the A.Y. 2011 -12 (x) Copy of respective Memorandum and Article of Association of the respective investing company. (xi) Share application money in respect of M/s Topgrain Mercantile Private Ltd. had been paid by certain other group companies such as M/s Bridge & Building Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., M/s Panchwati Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., M/s Virat Solutions & Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Passionate Agencies Pvt. Ltd. etc. on its behalf as well as on its asking. The said investing company has sent/certified copy of ledger accounts of all such sister concerns as well. Therefore, the above reason assigned by the Ld. AO is without any basis and support. The AO has not commented anything on the above documents. It is worthwhile to note that he did not find fault with the evidence filed by the invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in writing that he should directly issue summons to the directors but he remained unmoved. The more practical and better course, however, available with Ld. Assessing Officer was to issue commission u/s 131 (1)(d) of the Act in favour of some local Income Tax authority to conduct enquiries as none of them was a local resident. No persons residing at a distance of more than 1500 kms. can legally be pressurized to make personal attendance at Delhi. However, the assessee made sincere efforts to make them agree to the said exercise but did not succeed in bringing them over to Delhi. We succeeded in producing before the AO Shri Govind Agrawal, ex-director and authorised reprehensive of two of the investing companies namely M/s TVH Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Topgrain Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. We also produced before the AO Shri Pravin Nayak, Advocate and authorised representative of M/s Godsend Biotech Ltd. The AO recorded the statement of persons presented before him. They acknowledged that these companies had made investment in the Shares of the appellant company. This fact was acknowledged by the Ld AO on page 6 para 4.7 of his order. However he held that the directors were not ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt shows that Customer No. of M/s BBCCPL, Kolkata is 253002673 and its address is 90-B, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road, Kolkata, West Bengal- 700026. The investing company has also filed with the AO, a copy of OD limit account No. 01052320005783 of M/s BBCCPL, Kolkata in some other bank (name is not legible in the photocopy), its branch being at U.N. Brahamchari Street, Constantta Building II, Dr. U.N. Brahamchari Street, Kolkata-700017 (Phone No. 2210 3838). This OD limit account statement shows that Customer ID of M/s. Bridge & Building Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. is 33816018 and that its address is 90-B, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road, Kolkata, West Bengal- 700026. The above evidence proves in adequate measure that M/s BBCCPL, Kolkata does exist and is very much a genuine entity. It further proves that there is nothing abnormal about the impugned transaction between the investing company and M/s BBCCPL, Kolkata. It is not known as to at which defunct/discarded/old address of the said party, the Investigation Wing people were searching for the said BBCCPL, Kolkata, which was existing well before their eyes! In view of the above facts, it is submitted that there is no substance i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,00,000 22.06.10 One2 E Solution 55,00,000 22.06.10 Gromore Fund 45,00,000 22.06.10 Gromore Fund 50,00,000 25.06.10 Novelty Traders 50,00,000 25.06.10 Oshin Invest 50,00,000 25.06.10 One2 E Solution 50,00,000 25.06.10 stocknet Int 1,00,00,000 28.06.10 Oshin Invest 50,00,000 28.06.10 Novelty Traders 50,00,000 28.06.10 stocknet Int 50,00,000 28.06.10 Sidh Housing 50,00,000 28.06.10 Ishpat Sheets 50,00,000 28.06.10 Artillegence Bio 10,00,000, 30.06.10 Albatross Share 50,00,000 30.06.10 stocknet Int 50,00,000 30.06.10 Oshin Invest 40,00,000 30.06.10 Gyaneshwar Trading 50,00,000 2.07.10 Oshin Invest 50,00,000 2.07.10 Novelty Traders 50,00,000 2.07.10 Artillegence Bio 1,00,00,000 2.07.10 Oshin Invest 50,00,000 6.07.10 Oshin Invest 50,00,000 6.07.10 Novelty Traders 50,00,000 6.07.10 Artillegence Bio 50,00,000 6.07.10 Gyaneshwar Trading 50,00,000 6.07.10 Sidh Housing 25,00,000 6.07.10 Sidh Housing 50,00,000 07.07.10 Sidh Housing 50,00,000 07.07.10 One2 E Solution 50,00,000 07.07.10 Albatross Share 50,00,000 07.07.10 One2 E Solution 50, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove all, this so-called "cash trail" has no cash at all. It may kindly be verified from record that all the transactions are through banking channel and in none of the accounts of the parties referred to by the AO, there is any cash entry. This transfer of money from one hand to another and that too through the banking channel, proves nothing since money has essential nature of movement. It serves as a medium of exchange. It never remains stacked at a place. If it be so, the paper currency would be worn out, eaten up by the ants and loose its value. Not only that in none of the bank accounts requisitioned by the AO u/s 133(6) there were any cash deposits, it is further to be noticed that there were no doubtful entries or transactions in the said accounts as no such thing has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer. All these bank accounts were just normal bank accounts of the business concerns, which as usual contain entries of receipt and payments. So, examination of these bank accounts leads to nowhere. It does not help the AO to hold the money to have come from the coffers of the assessee company. Unless and until this chain of "trail of money" is completed, the allegation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- (i) Commissioner of Income tax v. M/s N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd.(Delhi High Court) In the cited case, the facts were that the assessee was a share broker but he had not traded in any stocks & shares. The assessee continued to receive dividends on its investments but it did not pay any dividend to the so-called share holders, from whom the impugned share capital had been obtained. The assessee's bank account showed large amount of cash debits and credit entries. Summons u/s 131 sent by the assessing officer to all the seven shareholders were received back un-served with the result that nobody attended. The assessee too did not attend the assessment proceedings and therefore received an adverse order. The assessment in the cited case was completed u/s 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ex-parte. As against the above facts of the cited case, the assessee duly attended the assessment proceedings and filed all the details to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the shareholders and genuineness of the transactions. So, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Further, there is no finding of any cash debits and credit entries in the account of the assessee. Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (iii) CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd.(Delhi) The facts of the cited case are quite distinguishable from the facts of our case. Therefore, its ratio is not applicable to the case of the appellant. (iv) CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 120/2012(Delhi)- (2013) 30taxmann.com292(Delhi)/ (2013) 214 Taxman 429(Delhi)/ (2013) 350 ITR 407(Delhi)/(2013) 256 CTR 34 This case law at S.No. (iv) at pages 11 to 14 of the assessment order has been quoted by the AO in the most confusing manner. The first two paras given thereunder and the gist of cases reproduced thereafter which have been referred to in the above judgment i.e. of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194(SC), CIT v. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623(SC)/A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) only pertain to the cited case of CIT v. Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. All other cases mentioned under the broad head 'Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.' were not part of the said judgment and have been mentioned here creating a lot of unnecessary confusion. Surprisingly, some of the said cited cases rather support the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ully establish their identity. Their audited balance sheets fully establish their financial worth. So, their creditworthiness is beyond doubt. All the investing parties have confirmed having made the transactions with the appellant company in response to notices u/s 133(6). In exchange to the share application money, shares have duly been allotted to each one of the investor. Assessee has also filed copies of share certificates issued to the investors. The information of such allotment was duly filed with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in the statutory return meant for that purpose and it must be available on their site. So, genuineness of the transactions, too, is established. 18. In counter to the submission made by the Ld. CIT-DR, his contentions including the decisions relied upon by him were as under: 10.1 Ld CIT DR stated that the assessee has not submitted current position of the shareholding. If these shares were bought back by the management of the assessee company it clearly proves that the funds introduced as share capital are own fund of the company. Reply: We have filed current position of shareholders and as per the same these shareholders are still continuing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Power Solutions P Ltd. Assessee-company was engaged in business of transmission and distribution of power with State Electricity Boards - From investigation/enquiry conducted by Investigation Wing in case of some companies, it was revealed that assessee had received money through those companies, whose business activities were suspicious and which were indulging in entry operation - Assessee company had received unsecured loan and share application money from these companies but failed to submit documentary evidences in respect of share allotment made to these companies - Assessing Officer observed that it clearly indicated that these transactions were sham and were made only for routing accommodation entries of said companies and made additions under section 68 - Assessee had furnished names and addresses of share applicants, their PAN and confirmation with their bank account and Income-tax returns - Moreover, Assessing Officer had not at all carried out any investigation to show that those companies did not exist but were paper company; they were not having worth of investing and transaction lacked genuinity - Further investigation wing report was not shown to assessee - Whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared before the AO, but merely sent response through Dak. In this case, from the facts on record, it is clear that the assessee has filed complete set of documents, but the AO neither carried out any investigation nor issued notices u/s. 133(6) or summons u/s. 131(1) to examine the veracity of documents furnished by the assessee. Unless, the AO carried out further investigations to ascertain true nature of transactions, he cannot come to the conclusion merely on the basis of documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, after considering relevant facts, the coordinate Bench came to the conclusion that decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. has no application, where the AO has not carried out any inquiries -(2010) 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi)/(201 1) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish P. Ltd. It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "In any matter, the onus of proof is not static one. Though in section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee, yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN numbers or Income-tax assessment numbers and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthiness of strangers. If the Revenue has any doubt with regard to their ability to make the investment, their returns may be reopened by the Department. In any case, what is clinching is the additional burden on the Revenue. It must show that even if the applicant does not have the means to make the investment, the investment made by the applicant actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. This has not been done in so far as the present case is concerned and that has been noted by the Tribunal also Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in deleting the addition" [2013] 30 taxmann.com 328 (Delhi) CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "Where the assessee in support of transaction of receipt of share application money brought on record various documents such as names and addresses of share applicants, their confirmatory letters, copies of bank statements etc., said transaction was to be regarded as genuine and, consequently, no addition could be made in respect of same under section 68." [2012] 19 taxma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have made some sense but we fail to understand as to how this amount of increased share capital can be assessed in the hands of the company itself. " The above-cited case relates to cash credit on account of subscription to shares whereas the assessee's case is that ............. of loan by way of subscription to OFCDs. The nature of both the receipts is similar as money is received in both cases from the subscribers. Hence, the ratio of the above case is quite applicable to the instant case. -[2002] 256 ITR 795(SC) CIT v. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its opinion in this case that in case where the share applicants were to be considered genuine, the right course for the Assessing Officer is to identify the real person to whom the money belongs and assess him to tax instead of assessing the company and as such there was no justification for assessing the company. (2014) 43 taxmann.com 395 (Gujarat) CIT -1 V. Dharamdev Finance (P) Ltd. The following questions were held in favour of the assessee: Various additions were made to the assessee's income on account of cash credits- It was found that in respect of said credits, the assessee had filed P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumption will not pass muster in law. The Revenue would be required to bridge that the suspicions and proof in order to bring home this allegation." DECISION 19. After considering the aforesaid submissions and the material relied upon before us, we find that there is no dispute that the assessee has received share application money from six companies, out of which, from three companies assessee has received premium for sums aggregating to Rs. 103,80,00,000/-. In the case of Ganesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Feelgood Creation Pvt. Ltd., and Beyond Management Pvt. Ltd. from whom the assessee has received share application money of Rs. 1,79,60,000/- Rs. 1,34,70,000/- and Rs. 1,34,70,000/-, respectively has been accepted to be genuine. Assessing Officer has only disputed the other three companies as discussed above, merely because the assessee company has received huge premium from such parties. In so far as the initial onus cast upon the assessee for proving the nature and source of the share capital, the assessee had filed various documents which have been incorporated in the foregoing paragraph, viz., a) Photocopy of share application forms, duly filled in, as submitted by the investin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer directly to him in their replies in response to notice u/s 133(6):- (i) Their respective written acknowledgment to the effect that each one of them has made investments in the shares of the assessee company. (ii) PAN details (iii) Assessment details in respect of Income tax assessments. (iv) Their respective complete name and address. The address of M/s Topgrain Mercantile Private Ltd. and that of M/s TVH Trading Company Pvt. Ltd was PD-107, Aparna Apartment, Krishna Pur, Samar Pally, Near Milan Bazaar, Kolkata-700 102. Address of M/s Godsend Biotech Private Ltd. is Ambika Silk Mills Compound Plot No. 11-12, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400013 (v) Certified copy of ledger account of the assessee company for the F.Y. 2010-11 as it existed in the books of accounts of each of the investing company. (vi) Copy of Covering letter, that of Resolution of Board of directors and that of Share application form, duly filled in and signed by the investing companies. (vii) Copy of audit report as signed by the qualified Auditors in respect of all the investing companies. (viii) Copies of duly audited final accounts viz. Balance Sheets as on 31.03.2011 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply to the notice u/s.133(6) and what extra he wanted to examine, has not been mentioned. 22. Regarding one of the companies, i.e., M/s. Bridge and Building Construction Pvt. Ltd. who has made the payment on behalf of M/s. Topgrain Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Ld. counsel explanation as incorporated above is testimony to itself that M/s. Topgrain Mercantile has furnished a certified copy of the ledger account of the said party which shows that investee company has sold its share against which M/s. Bridge and Building construction company had transferred the sale consideration thereof amounting to Rs. 57.30 crore through RTGS at the direction of M/s. Topgrain Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Evidences to this effect of RTGS transfer and copy of bank statement of the said company was also filed before the Assessing Officer. The said bank statement reveals that there was an OD limit and there was also mention of correct address. Thus, without any cogent material to rebut such evidence, adverse inference cannot be drawn that transaction through this company is sham. 23. Another allegation by the Assessing Officer was that these companies have received funds from other companies before issuance of chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue is dismissed. 26. In so far as the appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 is concerned, the facts are exactly the same, as here in this year assessee has received share application money of Rs. 23 crore. Out of Rs. 23 crores, Rs. 4.50 crore was received from M/s. TVH Trading Company and Rs. 18.50 crore from Vishaka Tech Pvt. Ltd. One additional fact in this year is that, shares could not be allotted to these parties and the share application money has been treated as advance received against the property for which the assessee-company has filed confirmation from the said parties to this effect. Here, in this year also, all the parties have confirmed and given the details to the Assessing Officer in response to the notice u/s. 133(6) and Assessing Officer has simply relied upon the finding of the earlier year. Additionally in this year, Director of M/s. TVH Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. had personally appeared before the Assessing Officer in relation to investment in Assessment Year 2011-12 also, who has confirmed the transaction not only for Assessment Year 2011-12 but also for Assessment Year 2012-13. Our finding given in the appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 will apply mutati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
