9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than the amount it was added in its hands. In view of this, since the Revenue could not dispute the identity, creditworthiness of the subscriber as well as genuineness of the transaction, therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities is not sustainable and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.2666/Kol/2019 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2022 - Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.10.2019 of the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oper position in law and thus coming to an erroneous finding in sustaining the impugned addition on account of share capital in the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Kolkata on the manifestly wrong application of the provisions of s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 basing on considerations not relevant to the issue in dispute is wholly illegal, illegitimate and infirm in law. 4. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata was remiss in sustaining the purported addition to the tune of Rs.81,007/- within the province of s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2). Kolkata by misreading the parameters of rule 8D(ii)/(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directors of the companies and, therefore, treated the said amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits and added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has duly discharged the initial burden lying upon it to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the share subscriber and genuineness of the transaction. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the required documents such as the copy of return, audited accounts, bank statement and source of such investment etc. were filed by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Ld. Assessing Officer in response to summons u/s 131 of the Act. In fact, there was no adverse evidence with the Ld. Assessing Officer to conclude the genuine transaction within the scope of unexplained cash credit. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that even the director of the assessee company had actually appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished the necessary details. He has further invited our attention to page 9 of paper book which is copy of the assessment order framed in the case of subscriber company i.e. M/s Lagan Vinicom P Ltd. to submit that the Assessing Officer of that company has made addition of Rs.1,22,50,000/- as unexplained credits u/s 69A of the Act, hence, that explains the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained cash credits additions of share premium amounting to ₹67,03,00,000, ₹44,85,00,000/-, ₹24,42,00,000/- ₹21,70,00,000/- in case of first four entities and accepted similar credits of ₹20,45,00,000/- to be genuine satisfying all parameters of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. It can therefore be safely assumed that all these additions sums forming subject-matter of the impugned additions to be accepted as genuine in respective investors entities' end as the source of the amount(s) in issue totalling to ₹3,01,00,000/-. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute that the same very amount cannot be added twice in payees and recipients' hands u/s 68 of the Act. We therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
