9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the remand proceedings, by the Assessing Officer, admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee cannot be faulted by taking a pedantic approach. - Decided against revenue. Insofar as the merit is concerned, as noted above, the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings did not record any adverse findings regarding the share applicants except the two parties, who could not be verified. Accordingly, vide impugned order, learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance under section 68 only in respect of the transaction with the aforesaid two parties. Thus, in view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) in the present case. As a result, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.7487/Mum./2010 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2022 - Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Mehul Jain ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 23/08/2010, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by learned Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, no confirmation or any other documentary evidence from parties to whom shares have been issued was submitted. The Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee seeking information about the shareholders. The Assessing Officer also issued summons under section 131 of the Act to 29 shareholders to produce details of share capital subscribed in the assessee company. However, only two shareholders, to whom shares have been issued to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs each, appeared before the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee failed to discharge its onus as to identity of the remaining shareholders, the Assessing Officer vide order dated before 24/12/2007 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, inter-alia, treated share capital and share premium received by the assessee of Rs. 3,90,30,000 (i.e. Rs. 3,39,30,000 minus Rs. 20,00,000) as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 5. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished additional evidences which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer by the learned CIT(A) vide letter dated 15/09/2008 requesting comments with respect to a) admissibility of the additional evidence; and b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant appeal. Further, I find that the information submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings being new address of the share holders, cannot be treated as fresh or new evidence as the names of the share holders had already been furnished before the A.O. which is evident from the fact that the A.O. in his report has not mentioned that the names of share holders furnished during the appellate proceedings were not the same as those furnished during the assessment proceedings and it was merely information about the addresses of the same share holders which were produced during the appellate proceedings. From the remand report I find that the A.O. has not mentioned that the names of the share holders furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings regarding whom the A.O. was required to conduct enquiries as per this office letter dated 15.09.2008 were not the same as those furnished during the assessment proceedings. Thus, finding that the appellant had merely furnished certain information regarding the share holders which cannot be treated as new evidence, hold that this information is required to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The only grievance against the impugned order raised by the Revenue, during the course of hearing, is that the learned CIT(A) admitted the fresh evidence submitted by the assessee without considering the fact that assessee failed to furnish the said evidence before the Assessing Officer even despite sufficient opportunity been granted. In the present case, as noted above, during the year under consideration there was an increase in share capital (i.e. share capital and share premium) of the assessee. In order to verify the above, the Assessing Officer sought information regarding the shareholders who have bought the shares of the company. As evident from the record, during the assessment proceedings, assessee could only provide the details of the shareholders as on 31/03/2005. Further, as recorded in the assessment order despite issue of summons under section 131 of the Act to 29 shareholders, only two shareholders appeared before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer granted relief only in respect of the share transactions with aforesaid two shareholders and made addition under section 68 in respect of the balance amount. 9. In appeal before the learned CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and share application money received during the year in question. In response to the same, the assessee, during the course of remand report proceedings, has submitted the details of increase in share application money, copy of returns and balance sheets of share applicants, ledger accounts copies of these parties. These details have been verified and cross checked with the details submitted by various creditors/share application money applicants. Sir, as directed details of share money application and of loan credits have been verified b issue of notices u/s.131 and u/s.133(6) of the I.T. Act. These notices were served on addresses given or revised addresses given by the assessee. In response to the notices issued, Directors/ Authorised representatives attended in person in cases where summons u/s.131 were issued and information was received by pos: in respect of cases where notices u/s.133(6) were issued. In other words, some parties attended in person while others submitted their replies in writing alongwith copies of return, ledger account and balance sheet. However, investments stated to be made by the following parties could not be verified as they are stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
