9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premium. During the year, the assessee has issued equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- at a premium of Rs. 490/- per equity share thereby raising a sum of Rs. 4,68,15,000/-. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions and also identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders. The AO also issued notice u/s 131 of the Act on 06.02.2015 to the directors of the assessee company calling upon them to produce managing directors of all the shareholding companies. The assessee filed evidences before the AO comprising names, addresses, PAN Nos. of the investors, bank statements, audited balance sheets etc. The AO also issued notice u/s 133(6) of the act to all the subscribers calling upon them to furnish following information: " i) Nature and purpose of transaction and copy of ledger accounts of the above mentioned assessee company as it appeared in your books of accounts for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, if any. ii) No. of shares applied for and allotted during the year along with detailed payment of share premium, if any. iii) Sources of funds for payment of share application money along with copy of Bank statement reflecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act cannot be a ground for making addition especially when the evidences were called for by issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the Act from the investors which were duly complied with by these investors by filing all details. The Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the assessee also distinguished the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. in 412 ITR 161 by observing that in that case AO had made extensive enquiries and even that investor companies were non-existent and also investor companies have failed to furnish the bank statements proving the source for making investment in the assessee company. However in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that all these evidences were requisitioned by the AO by issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the act which were duly furnished by each of the investors. The ld CIT(A) also noted that the assessee has discharged its onus by filing necessary evidences before the AO thereby proving the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions but despite that the AO has not pinpointed any defects in evidences filed by the assessee as well as investors as to how these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee has discharged its onus by filing all the details and evidences which were the part of the record and therefore the addition made by the AO was wrong and ordered to be deleted. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has discharged its onus by filing all the details in the assessment proceedings. Moreover, the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147/144 of the Act in all the cases of investors were also furnished before both the authorities below and copies of assessment order were also enclosed in the PB as stated hereinabove. Considering these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is otherwise a very reasoned and speaking order passed after discussing various factual details about each and every subscribers in para 4.6 such their source of investments, creditworthiness , etc. In our opinion, nonproduction of directors of the investors cannot be a ground for making addition in the hands of assessee u/s 68 of the Act when the other evidences relating to the raising share capital and also qua the share subscribers are available on record as furnished by the assessee and also the cross-ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the evidence and the relevant law." The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care all the material facts and record its findings on all contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner, in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. It is also ruled in the said judgment at page 465 that if the Tribunal does not discharge the duty in the manner as above then it shall be assumed the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from manifest infirmity. Taking inspiration from the Supreme Court observation we are constrained to hold in this matter that the Tribunal has not adjudicated upon the case of the assessee in the light of the evidence as found by the Ld. CIT(A). We also found no single word has been spared to up set the fact finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that there are materials to show the cash credit was received from various persons and supply as against cash credit also made. Hence, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. We restore the judgment and order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal is allowed." The case of is also covered by the decision of the coordinate bench by ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Develo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
