9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has raised the following grounds:- "1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.19,80,000/- on account of Unsecured Loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.19,80,000/- was received by the appellant in earlier years and not during the year under consideration. It is therefore prayed to delete the addition and necessary directions shall be given in this regard. 2. Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal." 3. While the Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal:- "1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m ACIT, Range 9(1) that the assessee company had taken share premium amounting to Rs.8,95,44,000 during the year under consideration, reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and notice dated 30/03/2014 under section 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee submitted that its original return filed on 30/09/2009 may be treated as a return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Upon receipt of the reasons for reopening the assessment, the assessee also filed its objections challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings in its case. The said objections were rejected and communicated to the assessee on 23/02/2015. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd. 3,300 4,95,000 4. Lalit Khilani 6,600 9,90,000 5. Dilip Chandan 61,600 92,40,000 6. Pravin Chandan 61,600 92,40,000 7. Rajesh Chandan 61,600 92,40,000 8. Talent Infoways Ltd. 3,300 4,95,000 7. In respect of subscribers at serial No. 3, 4, and 8, in the aforesaid table, the learned CIT(A) held that the receipt of investment by these investors is not proved by substantial documentary evidence and accordingly the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. However, in respect of remaining investors i.e. at serial No. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, the learned CIT(A) accepted the submissions of the assessee and directed the AO to delete the addition in respect of these entities. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d report regarding share investment by Cicago Commodities Private Limited. Further, we find that the assessee has not produced the party as required by the AO during the remand proceedings. 9. In respect of Mr. Dhaval Chandan, Mr. Dilip Chandan, Mr. Pravin Chandan, and Mr. Rajesh Chandan, the assessee filed confirmation, ITR acknowledgement, Ledger account, capital account, bank statement. In its remand report, the AO, inter-alia, submitted that from the bank statement of the investors it is evident that prior to the transfer of money to the assessee‟s account, Mr. Dhaval Chandan, Mr. Dilip Chandan, Mr. Pravin Chandan, and Mr. Rajesh Chandan received the money from some other entity. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Rs.5 lakhs during the financial year 2007-08. In the case of Lalit Khilani, the transaction was done in the financial year 2005-06 with Mr. Prakash H. Gadiya of "Gadiya Global Securities" and not in "Gadiya Global Forex Ltd.". The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the receipt from the investors was not proved by substantial documentary evidence. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the question of the creditworthiness of the investor can be raised only in the year in which the payment has been made. It is the plea of the assessee that there is no transaction among the parties except the allotment of shares for which the payment was made in the preceding financial ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
