9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount's which is to be adjusted. However, in the instant case that was not the case. There was no entry subsisting in the books of account's which was adjusted.This was a fresh issue of equity shares for consideration other than cash, and was not issued against any of liability in the books of accounts. We find that CIT(A) by well reasoned and detailed order and after considering the submissions of the assessee and for the reasons which have been reproduced hereinabove dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before us assessee has not placed any material on record to point out any fallacy in the findings of AO and CIT(A). In such a situation we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed. - ITA No. 536/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2023 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K CHOUDHRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4,New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2014- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthiness of the shareholders and genuineness of the transaction of allotment of shares. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. Assessing Authority and Id. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in alleging that credits on account of share capital premium received by the assessee during F.Y. 2007-08 as credits of the year under consideration i.e. F.Y. 2013-14 which is highly injudicious, unwarranted, against the facts of the case, based on surmise and conjectures and bad at law. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. Assessing Authority and Id. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in alleging that the assessee has not submitted any document to establish that the share capital premium was received by it during F.Y. 2007-08 as the assessee had duly submitted all the necessary evidences pertaining to the same. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. Assessing Authority and Id. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 1,70,21000/- u/s 69C of the Act alleging that the assessee has paid 2% commission on the amount of share capital premium of Rs. 85,10,50,000/- which is highly arbit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO that the notice was not responded by the assessee and further the summons issued to the Directors of the assessee company were also not responded. AO after considering the material available on record at page 11 of the order under para 3 has noted that the company has been operating without bank account which according to him showed that it was formed only for providing accommodation entries. He has further noted that no source of original allotment was given and no return of income was filed by the assessee though the shares were stated to have been allotted during A.Y. 2008-09. He has further noted that the shares were allotted at a premium of Rs. 4,490/- for each share and no justification has been given by the assessee for such a huge premium. AO has also given a finding under para 4 of the order that the perusal of the Balance Sheet of M/s. Tenstar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., reveals that it had shown investment of Rs. 9,95,000/- whereas the assessee company had shown share capital with premium recorded in its Balance Sheet at Rs. 85,10,50,000/- and further the Directors of the assessee and M/s. Tenstar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., are common. AO has further noted that assessee had f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine and are only self-serving documents. (These agreements are placed from page 1 to page 22 of the Paper book). As per the agreements, all such share subscribers have been allotted shares of Rs.10/-each at premium of Rs.4490/- in lieu of shares of certain unlisted companies valued at a very high rate and thus there is no payment in cash involved. 6.1.12 Further, these documents have not been corroborated with confirmation from these primary shareholders. The identity and creditworthiness of such primary share holders have not been divulged. Even the financials, board resolutions, Form 2 filed with ROC, etc. are also not on record. 6.1.13 It is also to be noted that there is no basis of the valuation also for which, the said transaction in shares has been made. Arbitrary values have been assigned without any reasoning and basis defying commercial prudence. Premium of Rs.4490/- has been paid by persons/companies of unproven financials credentials to the appellant company which has admittedly been doing no business, whatsoever. These primary shareholders have paid consideration in the form of highly valued shares of some unknown companies, whose financial credentials are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;t prove that real transaction pertains to FY 2007-08. Such documentation in the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be a cover up attempt to mask the transactions as pertaining to FY 2007-08 as genuineness of transaction of Rs.85,10,50,000/- in FY 2007-08 has not been established in the absence of identity, source of fund and creditworthiness of primary/earlier investors. It is worthwhile to mention that the appellant company and M/s Tenstar Technologies Pvt. Ltd. have common directors. 6.1.16 Thus, in view of the above, the submission of the appellant company that the sum was not credited in the current captioned year but in FY 2007-08 is not acceptable, in the absence of any independent, direct evidence for the Financial year 2007-08 filed on record. No documentary evidence, which can stand on its own evidentiary value and on which the control of the appellant company is not possible, has been filed on record. All the documents which are placed on record, and the manner in which they are prepared and the circumstances and timing of filing of the same before ROC suggest that the same are self serving, not genuine and hence does not have any evidentiary value. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g issue as well as about their intention to make investment in the equity shares of the appellant company because every investor wants to earn income from investment in the form of dividend as well as expects appreciation in the valuation of shares with the growth of business. The genuineness of the transactions is not proved at all because the appellant has failed to produce its Directors as well as the Directors of the primary share subscribing companies or Directors of M/s Tenstar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 9. CIT(A) thereafter placing reliance relied on the decisions cited in his order observed as under:- 6.1.25 I agree with the AO that this is a case of accommodation entry. The onus to prove the three factum i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness is on the assessee as the facts are within the assessee's knowledge. Mere production of copies of agreement with a number of persons without giving their PAN, source of income, IT details, bank statement is totally insufficient to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. Further, facts like non-maintenance of bank accounts, reliance only on self serving documents, Inability to produce the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
