9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent all the requisite details as required by the Assessing Officer in his notices u/s.133(6). Thus, there cannot be reason of compliance of the notices have been made beyond the dates specified by him and as his observation lose its relevance. Reason assigned by the Assessing Officer does not have much credence to dislodge the evidences filed by these parties to corroborate the assessee s explanation and the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the nature and source of credit. From bare perusal of the explanation duly supported by the documents, we find that whatever so called inquiry which was conducted by him has not lead to any iota of adverse material so as to hold that the transaction is not genuine. AO required the Directors/the representatives of the three companies which were produced before him, the same were duly complied with and not only they were produced but have also confirmed the transaction and given the required documents on the subsequent dates. Once these parties have directly confirmed the transaction with all the documents and the authorized representatives have duly appeared before the Assessing Officer, then without any substantial ground h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r u/s. 133(6), there was any cash deposits. Source of the fund and the creditworthiness of the parties , it is seen from the chart reproduced hereinabove that these parties had sufficient own funds to invest and the share of assessee-company duly reflected in their balance sheet as on 31.03.2011. Thus it cannot be held that the onus cast upon the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the investee parties or genuineness of the transaction has not been explained properly nor there is any adverse finding or material gathered from any inquiry that it is a bogus transaction or kind of accommodation entry. Thus, we do not find any reason to tinker and deviate from the finding of the ld. CIT (A) while deleting the addition. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A. No.283/DEL/2015 And 284/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2021 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR. For the Respondent : Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.11.2013. The assessments in the case of the appellant company have been finally completed by the ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi. 3. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the balance-sheet as on 31.3.2011 noticed that assessee s subscribed share capital has increased to ₹ 9,69,00,000/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee has issued ₹ 44,90,000/- equity shares at face value of ₹ 10/- and has further issued ₹ 51,90,000/- 1% Cumulative Redeemable Preference shares at face value of ₹ 10/- per share and further premium of ₹ 190/- per share. Thus, the share capital was raised by ₹ 108,29,00,000/- which was received from various parties. The details of which has been incorporated in the assessment order, which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced hereunder:- Name of Investor No of Share Allotted Face Value Premium Total 1 Godsend Bio Tech Ltd. 20,95,000 2,09,50,000 39,80,50,000 41,90,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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 that in the case of M/s. Topgrain Mercantile (P) Ltd., the payment have not been made by the said companies but it has been received by the assessee from the bank account of M/s. Bridge Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. He also sent notices u/s. 133(6) to banks of the investor companies to ascertain the source of fund given to the assessee by these three private limited companies. From the perusal of the bank statements, he observed that the bank statements reflect that these companies have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing 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 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 applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned 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 companies, which paid a part of share application money to the appellant company on behalf of and at the direction of M/s Topgrain Mercantile Private Ltd. (i.e. the actual investing company). As per the information available in our records, the said company exists at Kolkata at the address 90-B, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 026. The investing company M/s Topgrain Mercantile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 transaction are through banking channel in form of cheques. In absence of such cash deposit in any bank account in any layer bank enquiry proves that all the transaction are through traceable bank accounts of identified genuine concerns. All these concerns are taxable identity. There is no statement or evidence that even these concerns are bogus or fictitious which explains the source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention 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 assessment proceedings complete S documentary evidences inform of share application, Audit report of these shareholders, photocopy of share application form, Board s resolution to investment in appellant s company, copy of income tax return, copy of return of allotment of shares, copy of bank statement etc. to establish the genuineness of shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 companies as on 31.03.2011 are in same level as claimed by the assessing officer in the assessment order does not affect the genuineness of investment in appellant company as these share holder companies might have changed its investment from one form to another. This analysis of is of no consequence, till the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 circumstances, even the decision of Hon able High Court of Delhi in the case of N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., will not help the case, as in that case, the assessing officer has made enquiry to disprove apparently the evidences filed by the assessee, then the decision was given that the onus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 sha res 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) Copies of MCA21: Company Master Details and company/LLP Master Data of all the investing companies as obtained from the site of Ministry of Company Affairs . These documents have also been placed in the paper book before us. 12. Ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 investor companies, as detailed above. Neither did he reject the same before taking an adverse view in the matter. Once the assessee company has filed the necessary documents to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 carrying adequate documents to prove the transaction genuine. While directing the appellant to produce the directors of the investing companies, the AO did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engal- 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 in the assertion of the AO that M/s Bridge Building Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. is a non-existent company. Above all, the AO i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,00,000 15.06.10 Ishpat Sheets 50,00,000 15.06.10 Novelty Traders 50,00,000 15.06.10 Albatross Share 50,00,000 16.06.10 Ishpat Sheets 50,00,000 16.06.10 Artillegence Bio 50,00,000 17.06.10 50,00,000 17.06.10 Novelty Traders 50,00,000 17.06.10 One2 E Solution 50,00,000 17.06.10 stocknet Int 50,00,000 17.06.10 Ishpat Sheets 50,00,000 18.06.10 Albatross Share 50,00,000_j 18.06.10 Ishpat Sheets 50,00,000 18.06.10 Novelty Trader ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 50,00,000 07.07.10 Novelty Traders 50,00,000 07.07.10 Albatross Share 50,00,000 07.07.10 Novelty Traders 50,00,000 07.07.10 stocknet Int 50,00,000 07.07.10 Oshin Invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k balance of ₹ 23.01 crore in the bank account of M/s Godsend Bio-tech Ltd. against which the funds were transferred to the assessee company on 14/07/2010. Therefore, the allegation of AO that the funds were immediately transferred to assessee company is not correct. It was further noted from the said money trail chart that on page 27 of the order, the AO contended that assessee company received funds from Topgrain Mercantile P Ltd. on 10/05/2010, which were received by this company from other parties on 01/10/2010. Now how it is possible to release funds on 10/05/2010 against the funds received on 01/10/2010. Same situation is appearing on page 28 as well. It appears that the so called trail chart prepared by AO has no legs and contention of AO is far from truth and it proves nothing. The Assessing officer has failed to bring out any material to show that the said funds originated from the appellant company and ultimately came back to it under the garb of share application money. Above 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Reserve Surplus 46,58,88,000 45,16,80,000 45,19,76,000 Total Own Funds 48,54,00,000 47,06,00,000 46,17,00,000 Investment in share of assessee Company 26,40,00,000 35,50,00,000 41,90,00,000 14. Further, Assessing Officer's remark that Kolkata is a breeding place of paper companies and that all the investing companies, based are at Kolkata, are therefore non- genuine companies, shows his prejudiced mind. He seems to have forgotten the fact that Kolkata is a big centre of business and commerce of India. He further seems to have conveniently ignored the fact that even the appellant company is a Kolkata based company. As per his way of thinking, the appellant company too should be a fictitious company. There is no legal or factual basis of such finding of the Assessing Officer regarding the Kolkata based companies. This finding of his is entirely based on conjectures, surmises, doubts and mere heresy. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o provide their changed addresses. The assessee did not comply. He neither furnished new addresses of the investors nor produced them. Rather, he continued to say that all the relevant details relating to share capital have already been filed. Then, the AO got enquiries conducted from Mahamedha Bank Ltd., Noida, from which bank the pay orders towards share application money had been got issued and in which bank all the three shareholding companies had shown their accounts and the assessee had claimed that the pay orders had been made out of funds lying in the said bank accounts of the investing companies. From the information provided by the bank, it was found that two of the investing companies had opened bank accounts on 31.03.2007 whereas pay orders towards share application money were dated 29.06.2006(i.e. before opening of account). It meant that the claim of the assessee that the pay orders were made out of regular bank accounts of the investing companies was patently wrong. Moreover, in the bank of the third investing company, cash of ' 25.04 lakhs had been deposited before issuing pay order for ' 25,03,125/-. These facts led to believe that transactions of share app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the order of the ITAT. 16. One very important fact, which Ld. Counsel pointed out that apart from various evidences filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has got all the relevant details directly from the investing companies as requisitioned u/s. 133(6) by him which is a fact available on record and also discussed in the Ld. CIT (A) order. Thus, all the parties have directly confirmed before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings itself. Apart from that, legal representatives of the main investing companies too were produced before the Assessing Officer, who confirmed the transaction, in question and the details as required were also filed subsequently. The allegation and observation of the Assessing Officer that no reply was filed which was asked by the representatives of the companies is totally erroneous. 17. Finally, he submitted that the appellant had fully discharged its onus by filing plethora of documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The investing parties are available at the given addresses; are regular Income-tax assessees, duly registered corporate entities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act neither any person appeared before AO and AO has enquired about the investor companies and proved that the same are non-existing companies. Further in this case all the three parties have duly replied notice issued U/s 133(6) and provided the desired details to the AO. AO has not acted upon the information provided by the assessee as well as by the investor companies. There is no further investigation by the AO. Therefore, the reliance of Apex Court decision is not correct. On the contrary, we submit that after NRA Steel there are number of decision in favour of assessee wherein it was held that once details provided to the AO onus is on the AO to further investigate and bring material to prove the transaction non-genuine. We rely on the following decisions in this regard: -(2018) 257 Taxman 390 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Hi-tech Residency Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 335 (SC) PCIT vs. Hi-tech Residency Pvt. Ltd. - SLP Dismissed. Section 68 addition was made in hands of assessee company since assessee was not able to produce any of director, shareholders or principal officer of companies to whom shares were allotted lenders from whom unsecured loans was taken - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es concerned; thus, once genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, revenue should not justifiably put itself in armchair of a businessman or in position of Board of Directors and assume role of ascertaining how much is a reasonable premium having regard to circumstances of case - Held, yes - Whether, thus, once genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no addition could be made as cash credit on ground that shares were issued at excess premium - Held, yes (2019) S/tree Laxmi Estate (P.) Ltd. in ITA No. 6557/Mum 2017 (Mumbai) In the above case The Bench had considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra) and held that the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court are entirely different, where on the basis of facts of that case Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that mere furnishing of certain documents is not sufficient enough and what is relevant is all three ingredients, i.e. identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties should be proved beyond doubt. We find that in the case before the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d loans and cash credits to the assessee were not brought on record- The assessee before Commissioner (Appeals) had filed several details including their PAN, bank statements and Income Tax returns- Commissioner (Appeals) deleted additions being based on no material- Whether there was no reason to interfere with the said finding- Held, yes [Para 23] [2014] 49 taxmann.com 13 (Delhi) CIT v. Nipun Auto (P) Ltd. Hon ble Delhi High Court averred in this case that Where identity of share applicants had been established and their bank accounts, IT returns and balance sheet in addition to confirmation letters were produced, addition under section 68 was to be deleted. CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 0268(Delhi) It was held by Hon ble Delhi High Court that If relevant details of the address or PAN identity of the creditor/subscriber are furnished to the Department along with the copy of the share holders register, share application forms, share transfer register etc., it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable explanation by the assessee In the case of the appellant, a number of documents, as enumerated in the earlier paragrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cheques, etc., it could be said that assessee had discharged its initial onus and just because some of creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give revenue a right to invoke section 68 without any additional material to support such a move. CIT v. M/s Vishal Holding Capital (P) Ltd. ITA 1031/2010 (Delhi) In this case, it was held by Hon ble Delhi High Court that In our opinion, the AO has simply acted on the information received from the Investigation Wing without verifying the details furnished by the assessee. The assessee has also produced best possible evidence to support its claim. Consequently, the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. In the case of the appellant as well, Ld. AO has simply acted on the report of the Investigation Wing and conducted no meaningful enquiry at his level. So, there was no case for making the addition. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 263/1 1 5 Taxman 99(SC) In this case, Hon ble Supreme Court affirmed the view of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568, that reads as under: It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecured loan and interest thereon. (2013) 37 taxmann.com 340 (Allahabad) CIT-1, LKO v. Lucknow Property Management Group It was held by Hon ble High Court that Addition as cash credit was not sustainable where assessee-developer received amounts from allottees, who were regularly assessed to tax. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 550 (Gujarat) CIT-1 Vs. Shailesh Kumar Rasiklal Mehta Hon ble Gujarat High Court averred that Where transactions were routed through bank and the assessee had explained the source of income, additions u/s 68 could not be made. In the case of CIT v. Jitendra Dolepatbhai Shah (2014) 41 taxmann.com 523 (Gujarat), Hon ble High Court averred that The source of credit has been explained by the assessee with documentary evidence and the documents were not found false. On perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals), we are convinced that on doubts and suspicion, the AO has treated short term capital gain as unexplained credit On the basis of doubts and suspicion, the cash credits cannot be held as unexplained. Similarly, in the case of MOD Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. IT0( Delhi High Court), it was held that The assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificates 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) Copies of MCA21: Company Master Details and company/LLP Master Data of all the investing companies as obtained from the site of Ministry of Company Affairs 20. One of the main allegation of the Assessing Officer is that the notices sent u/s.133(6) were no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. 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. 21. Thus, the reason assigned by the Assessing Officer does not have much credence to dislodge the evidences filed by these parties to corroborate the assessee s explanation and the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the nature and source of credit. Regarding various observations and allegation of the Assessing Officer, the ld. counsel has given a very detail rebuttal based on documents on record as incorporated above in the foregoing paragraphs. From bare perusal of the explanation duly supported by the documents, we find that whatever so called inquiry which was conducted by him has not lead to any iota of adverse material so as to hold that the transaction is not genuine. The Assessing Officer required the Directors/the representatives of the three companies which were produced before him, the same were duly complied with and not only they were produced but have also confirmed the transaction and given the required documents on the subsequent dates. Once these parties have directly confirmed the transaction with all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on 14.07.2010, the company was having funds of ₹ 12.25 crore in bank account and the balance amount was received from various parties between 11.06.2010 to 12.07.2010. Further as per the bank statement as on 01.07.2010 there was a bank balance of ₹ 21.01 crore in the bank account of M/s. Godsons and M/s. Biotech Ltd. against which the funds were transferred to the assessee-company on 14.07.2010. Thus, this allegation of the Assessing Officer also does not have any basis. Similarly in the case of funds received from M/s. Topgrain Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd. on 10.05.2010 also it was duly shown that this company has received funds from other parties prior to date. Nowhere in the so called alleged cash trail there is an element of cash or anything has been brought on record that any of the trails, assessee s undisclosed cash or income has been routed. In fact, none of these bank account requisitioning by the Assessing Officer u/s. 133(6), there was any cash deposits. 24. In so far as the source of the fund and the creditworthiness of the parties, it is seen from the chart reproduced hereinabove that these parties had sufficient own funds to invest and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
