9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra in Income Tax Appeal No. 311/Agra/2017 for A.Y. 2010-11. By that order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and thus confirmed the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) dated 28.02.2017, allowing the assessee's appeal, deleting additions made under Section 68 of the Act with respect to share capital Rs. 19 crores invested in the assessee company by three entities namely - M/s Jewellock Trexim Pvt. Ltd., M/s Alberta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Gurprasad Holding Pvt. Ltd. 3. The present appeal has been pressed on the following substantial question of law : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the ITAT was perve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bishnu Kumar Banka recorded during the assessment proceedings as also statement of Sri Lavlesh Jain recorded during search proceedings. There is no doubt that the said Bishnu Kumar Banka and Lavlesh Jain were directors of the company Jewellock Trexim Pvt. Ltd. At the same time, perusal of the statement of Bishnu Kumar Banka recorded during assessment proceedings reveals, he claimed ignorance as to the actual business transaction of that company. He also claimed ignorance as to the investment of Rs. 7 crores 50 lakhs made by M/s Jewellock Trexim Pvt. Ltd. in the assessee company. He further stated, the actual functional director of the company was Mr. Lavlesh Jain. 6. Thus, Sri Bishnu Kumar Banka did not prove or disprove the fact of inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not point to any evidence existing on record as may have led to the conclusion that any part of the investment made in the assessee company by the three investing entities was false or bogus. 11. Prima facie, in face of investment made through banking channel which according to learned counsel for the revenue was duly disclosed in the regular returns of the investing entities, there does not exist any presumption or room to disbelieve the investment made in the assessee company. 12. The burden to prove otherwise rested squarely on the revenue authorities. Unless the initial onus had been discharged by leading some evidence that may have led itself to the conclusion that the investment was never made, the burden that was cast on the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
