9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing channels into the bank account of the assessee company; that the creditor is Income Tax payee and has adequate financial resources and that his identity and creditworthiness has been fully established. Perusal of the CIT s order shows that he has dealt with all the points raised by the Ld. A.O in support of the impugned addition negating them all. We do not find any legal substance in the arguments of the Ld. Sr. DR. The appeal of the Revenue is bereft of any merit. Decided against revenue. - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None. For the Revenue : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR. ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M. The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 27.08.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, New Delhi [ CIT(A) ] pertaining to Assessment Year ( A.Y. ) 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs 5,18,00,000 (share capital of Rs 2,59,00,000/- and share premium of Rs 2,59,00,000/-) received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma who held 99.81 % share holding in the assessee company. Confirmation letter dated 05.11.2016 from Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma was filed wherein he confirmed that he has invested Rs. 5,18,00,000/- as share application money through account payee cheque in the assessee company during the year. 4. The explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who observed that Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma has not filed his ITR for A.Y. 2014-15. Further his bank statement showed that whenever he had given cheque to the assessee company for shares it was preceded by a credit entry of similar amount or almost similar amount. Relying on several decisions he held that the share application money received from Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma amounting to Rs. 5,18,00,000/- remained unexplained which he added back to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act and completed the assessment on total income of Rs. 5,11,83,890/- on 27.12.2016 under section 143(3) of The Act. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) on appeal filed by the assessee held that the assessee has discharged its initial onus of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction of Rs. 5,18,00,000/- and del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lmost similar amount. Though confirmation of Loan of Rs. 5,20,00,000/- from RB Builders Pvt. Ltd. was submitted but he totally ignored the same. 5.6 It is not the case of the AO that an enquiry either through notice u/s 133(6) or through notice u/s 131 of the Act was conducted and the Appellant was controverted with findings of enquiry and that the Appellant failed to controvert the said findings by way of production of evidences as required. In the present case, the Appellant is found to have adduced due evidence so as to satisfy the rigors of provisions of S. 68 of the Act. Importantly, Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma is happened to be the director of the Appellant Company whose all relevant details were filed to the AO and who has been assessed independently in the Ward 44(4) Delhi Statement of affairs of Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma wherein his net worth at Rs.13.41 crores conforms his creditworthiness. He is also found to have availed a loan facility of Rs. 4.12 crores from Canara Bank. It is also noticed that Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma has received a loan of Rs. 5.20 crore from M/s R.B Builders Pvt. Ltd. during the year. 5.7 Issue of cheques preceded by similar credit entry in the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared for the assessee on 25.10.2021, 11.05.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023, 23.03.2023, 18.05.2023, 03.08.2023, and on 06.11.2023. Therefore, we proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR. 8. The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO. He argued that in the absence of ITR for AY 2014-15 of Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Director, his sources were never examined by his AO. He also pointed out that enquiry conducted in AY 2015-16 in M/s RB Builders Pvt. Ltd., the claim of receipt of unsecured loan by Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma from that company was not found to be genuine. 9. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the assessee company was incorporated and started his broadcasting business during the year. It was the assessee company s first year of business. In such a fact scenario, in our humble opinion, if addition at all was to be made, it should have been made in the hands of the promoter; it cannot be made in the hands of the assessee company. 10. Coming to the merits of the impugned addition, during the course of appellate proceedings the assessee gave a list of 8 documents in support of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
