9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany, could inevitably give rise to the subsequent conclusion that the money received from that company was actually undisclosed income of the assessee without any material to show any link between the said entity and the assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant - revenue has argued that under Section 68 of the I.T Act, such a presumption can be drawn and it was for the assessee to prove that the income was infact not his income. In our considered opinion this argument is too far-fatched It may have been different if some link had been established between the said entity and the assessee, but in the absence thereof, it cannot be held that the presumption under Section 68 of the IT Act, is available. No fault can be found with the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back by M/s HAWK fright Service. It may be further mention that in the first year balance sheet provision of interest on the loan was there which was paid in subsequent years. We are also enclosing complete balance sheet of the M/s Blessing Investment Ltd as on 31/03/2007 and 31/03/2013. As on 31/03/2013 where total funds are to the tune of ₹ 28.00 Cr (4702131 US Dollars converted at the rate of ₹ 59.55. In the said balance sheet also M/s Blessing Investment the said investment Ltd owns the said investment. We further submit that the company i.e. M/s Blessing Investment Ltd. Still hold the said investment. The Certificate from the said company is also enclosed. It may be further submitted that total 456710 shares were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment . If some information was received by the Assessing Officer later on, though creates some suspicion, but in our view, that is not enough for holding that investment made by the M/s Blessing Invests Ltd. was out of unaccounted income of the assessee. We therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed. The first argument of the learned counsel is that both the Commissioner and the Tribunal erred in holding that this material was not sufficient to justify re-assessment. In our considered opinion, even if for the sake of arguments this assertion is accepted, the crux of the matter is whether the conclusion that the entity was a shell company, could inevitably give rise to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
