9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessment proceedings but at the end period of the Assessment proceedings. The parties with correct address were never inspected by the AO - CIT(A) without verifying the actual existence of the share applicant parties at those addresses, simplicitor accepted the contentions of the assessee, which is not just and proper. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter needs to be adjudicated after taking cognizance of the new addresses of the share applicants provided by the assessee by issuing fresh notice under Section 133(6) to those parties. And thereafter, take cognizance of the relevant material and adjudicate the matter. Thus, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication after issuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted share application money to the share applicants mentioned in the assessment order. The assessee filed details and reply before the Assessing Officer. After going through the details and reply the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 1,98,50,000/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has without going into the details filed before the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee thereby deleting the addition. The CIT(A) has over looked the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties and simplicitor a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hare applicants and independently obtained the Confirmations from them along with ITR copies and Bank statements, share certificates etc directly from the share applicants, which is mentioned at first and second para on page - 3 of Assessment Order. The Assessing Officer also obtained copies of Bank Statement of all the Share Applicants again from the respective Banks by issuing notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act and cross-verified the same. In spite of the fact that the Assessee had discharged its onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the credits as required u/s. 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer directed and the assessee on 13.03.2015 to produce the Principal officers/Directors of the share applicants on 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alances when the payments were made to the assessee. The addition has been made only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The Assessing Officer ignored that the Assessee had duly discharged its onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the credits as required u/s. 68 of the Act. He has also ignored the fact that he himself got the same cross-verified and got confirmations directly from the Parties as well as the Banks by issue of notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the order on page 13 in the beginning of third para from top mentioned that he had issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act to the Share Applicants and that no one had attended his office in response to them. It is not known why he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi and the jurisdictional bench of Tribunal. The Ld. AR relied upon the ratio of the decisions of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Income Tax Officer ward 5(1) New Delhi vs. M/s. Blisswood Green Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA no. 5120/Del/2016 dated 15.02.2019 where in after considering the ratio of the decisions of the High Court's including that of the Jurisdictional High Court, the Revenue's appeal on similar facts has been dismissed. The Ld. AR also relies upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. ITO Ward 8(3) New Delhi dated 19.5.2021 in ITA No. 2106/D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax - V vs. Nipun Auto Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court in ITA 225/2013 dated 30.4.2013). For the proposition that the Assessing Officer cannot shift the onus back onto the Assessee Company without the Assessing Officer producing any tangible material to doubt the veracity of the documents furnished by the assessee the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax - V vs Nipun Auto Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court in IT A 225/2013 dated 30.4.2013) was relied upon by the Ld. AR. For the proposition that Revenue cannot reject the claim of the creditworthiness on the basis of the low income reflected in their Return of income the decision in case of CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms Pvt. Ltd., etc. ITA. No. 71 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
