9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the head income from other sources nor have strong financials to justify the investment with huge premium, as would be evident from Annexure SP which forms part of the order. Neither the applicants are likely to receive any dividend nor the assessee has carried out any valuation to justify the huge premium charged. Accordingly, the transactions relating to issue of shares are not genuine nor the creditworthiness of the creditors has been established. Hence in view of the decision of BST Infratech Ltd. [ 2024 (4) TMI 989 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and others and the discussion made out by the Ld. CIT(A) to demonstrate that the applicants are shell companies, there does not appear to be any justification to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and his order is hereby confirmed - Decided against assessee. - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Bibekananda Madhu, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the reason of large share premium received. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued but the assessee did not appear. Submissions in the form of hard copy of return, copy of audited accounts, acknowledgement of return etc. were filed. The Assessing Officer issued Summons u/s 131 of the Act to the directors of the assessee company for personal attendance but no compliance was made. Therefore, the AO passed the order u/s 143(3) making the addition of Rs. 4,91,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, which includes Rs. 4,91,000/- of share capital money and Rs. 4,86,09,000/- as share premium. The Assessing Officer was of the view that whenever a sum is credited in the books of the assessee, the onus lies on the assessee to prove the three ingredients of the identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 463 (Calcutta), wherein it was observed that it was for the assessee to prove the identity of creditor, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. If the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that section 68 of the Act applies to the facts of this case as a sum of money was credited, in the books of the assessee and the assessee could not prove the genuineness of these credits as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor. Hence, in our informed view the addition has rightly been made by the AO. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed as the factual matrix is more or less similar. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have gone through the written submissions of the Ld. AR and the Ld. Sr. DR, the orders of the authorities below and have perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) noticed that the assessee had claimed to have issued shares at premium to the following companies: 1. Active Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 2. Amritlaxmi Commosales Pvt. Ltd. 3. Amtek Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 4. Calvin Traders Pvt. Ltd. 5. Everest Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 6. Fairway Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 7. Koel Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. 8. Minolta Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. 9. Muskan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 10. Nightangle Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. 11. Pushpanjali Intrade Pvt. Ltd. 12. Truevalley Merchants Pvt. Ltd. 13. Wonderland Merchants Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his order. He was of the view that in this case share allotment have been made in violation of the provision of the Contract Act therefore, mere furnishing of documents would not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 68 of the Act. The Hon ble Tribunal in the case relied upon by him have held that: (a) Since shares have been allotted in contravention to the provisions of the Companies Act the transactions in question cannot be accepted as genuine. (b) Mere production of PAN, incorporation details, or Income Tax Returns may not be sufficient when the surrounding facts indicate a cover up. (c) Identification of a person includes Place of work, Employment of staff, Genuineness of business and the recognition of the company in the eyes of public at large. Accordingly, he inferred that the share applicant company are exhibiting all the characteristics of a Shell Company as the finding of the Tribunal as mentioned squarely applies to the facts of the case of the assessee. He further discussed as under: It is observed that a company which has been recently incorporated without any track record does not in any way justify a premium. It is the onus of the assessee to prove with all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e findings given by the Apex Court in the case of Lovely Export (P) Ltd. [216 CTR 195) to come to the conclusions that it does not help in the case of the assessee. The SLP filed by the assessee against the order of the Hon ble High Court in Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has now been dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court therefore the observations in the above order have now attained finality. The Ld. CIT(A) further discussed the issue relating to huge premium on shares for which no clarification was given by the assessee and has tabulated the premium charged at Rs. 990/- at the face value of shares of Rs. 10/- from various parties as under: S. No. Name of the share holder Number of shares allotted Face Value Premium per share Total amount of capital along with premium 1 Active Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 3650 10 990 3650000 2. Amritlaxmi Commosales Pvt. Ltd. 4600 10 990 4600000 3. Amtek Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 6700 10 990 6700000 4. Calvin Traders Pvt. Ltd. 6000 10 990 6000000 5. Everest Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 1700 10 990 1700000 6. Fairway Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 8900 10 990 8900000 7. Koel Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. 775 10 990 775000 8. Minolta Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. 3700 10 990 3700000 9. Muskan Distrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee filed an appeal in Form 35. However, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO without even paying heed to the assessee's submission. It is submitted that the assessee company issued 49,100 shares with the face value of Rs. 10/- per share along with a premium of Rs. 990/- per share to 13 companies namely: Active Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Amritlaxmi Commosales Pvt Ltd, Amtek Distributors Pvt Ltd, Calvin Traders Pvt Ltd, Everfast Vinimay Pvt Ltd, Fairway Distributors Pvt Ltd, Koel Tradecom Pvt Ltd, Minolta Vyapaar Pvt Ltd, M/s Muskan Distributors Pvt Ltd, Nightangle Vintrade Pvt Ltd, Pushpanjali Intrade Pvt Ltd, Truevalley Merchants Pvt Ltd and Wonderland Merchants Pvt Ltd. The assessee duly filed all the evidences of all the subscriber companies to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber companies and also prove the genuineness of the transactions as under which are enclosed in the paper book. 1. In connection to, Active Vincom Pvt. Ltd bearing PAN AAHCA4627M, all the relevant documents such as Income Tax Return Acknowledgement for Asst Yr 2012-13, copy of audited P L account, Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2012, copy of Certificate of Incorporation, copy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has discharged the initial onus that lay on it as it duly established the, identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions. Even otherwise, the personal appearance of the director of the assessee company has nothing do with the degree of proof for the purpose of section 68. The relevant evidences as stated above were filed. No verification worth name was made by the AO by issuing notices u/s 133(6) to the parties. No verification worth name was made by the AO by making necessary verification from the assessment records of the parties. The companies were all Active Compliant companies as per MCA Master Data which are enclosed in the paper book. It is further submitted that as per section 68, initial onus is upon the assessee to establish identity, capacity of the lender or the depositor and the genuineness of the transaction. The subscribers to the share capital are all identifiable persons. The PAN of all the shareholders, I.T. Acknowledgement, Certificate of Incorporation, copy of bank statement, profit and loss account and balance sheet, source, memorandum and articles of association, Master Data, Share Application and allotment advic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crepancies and inadequacies in Revenue operation Vs. PAT which is not commensurate with the quantum of revenue from operation, neutralization of other income i.e. the considerable amount of income from other sources (which is a part of total revenue receipt), has been neutralized or almost negated by the amount of total expenses, which are slightly less than the figures of total receipt. The cash in hand is very meagre. Almost all the companies involved in this case, despite having weak financial strength, have procured premium on sale of shares and have paid premium in purchase of shares as well. These companies are generally group companies, managed controlled by the same person or the persons of the same group. Most of the share holding companies do not have real business except to purchase sale shares of the lesser- known companies. There is rotational movement of fund and the huge debit credit entries in the bank statements of the involved companies reflect the rotational movement of incoming and outgoing of fund and such pattern resembles that of penny stock or shell companies. Such companies often do not have the real profit motive. Investment in shares of non-blue-chip comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, is lacking in this case. Hence mobilization of huge share capital and premium may not appear feasible. Further, there are specific observations during assessment proceeding and first Appellate proceeding as under: The assessee company reflecting total income of Rs 3,518 only, claimed to have received share capital @ Rs. 10 per share with premium @ Rs. 990 per share, totalling to Rs. 4,91,00,000 from 13 Pvt. Ltd companies out of which 12 companies have reflected nil income from operation and only one company reflected Rs. 4,81,411 as income from operation. None has shown core activity or business. None existence of fixed assets or inventories in respect of shareholders, hints that there is no sign of company activity engaged in business. None of them have any fixed assets or infrastructure required to carry on a business. Total income as per the computation of income is very meagre. Five companies have shown negative income; four companies have shown total income of lesser than Rs. 4,700; two companies have shown total income of lesser than Rs. 11,000 and rest two companies have shown total income of lesser than Rs. 21,000. The extent of operation does not justify the capacity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of share premium are: (a) highly rated past performance of the company; (b) healthy financial record and healthy investment in useful assets; (c) usually higher rate of return per share; (d) highly valued goodwill of the company, the group companies, the Directors of the company and the promoters of the company (e) high healthy liquidity to meet exigencies; (f) heavy public demand of shares of the company; (g) Higher current ratio (h) Higher ratio of gross profit margin; (i) Higher ratio of net profit margin; (j) Higher price earning ratio; (k) Higher (EPS) earning per share; (1) Higher cash earning per share; (m) Higher return on asset; (n) Higher return on capital employed; (0) Higher stock turnover ratio; (p) Higher ratio of cost of goods sold (ratio); (q) Lower debt equity ratio etc.; But unfortunately, all these determinants, on rational analysis of the available facts, are found to be either negative or slightly positive in the case of valuation of the shares of the involved companies, and still the shareholders have made investment at a huge premium in the company and such investment in shares is against human rationality, financial probability and rational legal sense. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory discharge of onus particularly when surrounding and attending facts predicate a cover up. The burden is to be discharged with positive material. Identity of investor is deeper and obtrusive than mere completion of paper work or documentation (CIT v. N. Tarika Properties Investment (P) Ltd). (2) As regards the capacity of the creditor to advance money, Le, creditworthiness-As far as creditworthiness or financial strength of the credit/subscriber is concerned, that can be proved by producing the bank statement of the creditors/subscribers showing that it had sufficient and reliable balance in its accounts and that the person is not a man of straw and his actual financial worth is robust, which is evident to rationality, common prudence and is expressed through the lifestyle. Unimpeachable creditworthiness must be evidenced from factual matrix and surrounding circumstances. (3) The genuineness of the transaction is to be demonstrated by showing that the assessee had, in fact, received money from the creditor and it came from the coffers from that very person. The test of human probabilities could be applied to assess the genuineness of the transaction. Merely because the transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed tribunal it will be beneficial to take note of a few decisions which have elaborately dealt with Section 68 of the Act and what are the parameters which are required to be established to prove the creditworthiness or the genuineness of a transaction. 15. Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the departments submits that though the assessee might have established the identity and creditworthiness of the share ap-plicants at the relevant time but the third and the most important ingredient namely genuineness of the transaction has to be established and unless and until all the three factors are conjointly estab-lished, the revenue was fully justified in invoking Section 68 of the Act. 16. In CIT v. N.R. Portfolio Private Limited [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339/264 CTR 258/222 Taxman 157 (Delhi) the substantial question of law which was framed for consideration is whether the tri-bunal was right in deleting the additions under Section 68 of the Act and whether the decision of the tribunal is perverse. 17. With regard to the role of the assessing officer, the Hon'ble Court held that the assessing officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator; when a fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case, no profit or dividend was declared on the shares. Any person, who would invest money or give loan would certainly seek return or income as consideration. These facts are not adverted to and as noticed below are true and correct. They are undoubtedly relevant and ma-terial facts for ascertaining creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 19. The doctrine of Source of Source or Origin of Origin was explained in the following terms:- 24. We are conscious of the doctrine of 'source of source' or 'origin of origin' and also possible difficulty which an assessee may be faced with when asked to establish unimpeachable credit-worthiness of the share subscribers. But this aspect has to be decided on factual matrix of each case and strict or stringent test may not be applied to arms length angel investors or normal public issues. Doctrine of 'source of source' or 'origin of origin' cannot be applied universally, without reference to the factual matrix and facts of each case. The said test in case of normal business transactions may be light and not vigorous. The said doctrine is applied when there is evidence to show that assessee may not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es if payment is made through banking channels. Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction was entered into through written documentation to protect the investment, whether the investor professes and was an angel investor, the quantum of money, creditworthi-ness of the recipient, the object and purpose for which payment/investment was made etc. These facts are basically and primarily in knowledge of the assessee and it is difficult for revenue to prove and establish the negative. Certificate of incorporation of company, payment by banking channel, etc. cannot in all cases tantamount to satisfactory discharge of onus. The facts of the present case noticed above speak and are obvious. What is unmistakably visible and apparent, cannot be spurred by formal but unreliable pale evidence ignoring the patent and what is plain and writ large. 21. In Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2016 SCC Online Cal 1237, one of the substantial questions of law which fell for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onus of proof lies on the assessee. The decision in Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1977) 2 SCC 378 was referred to wherein it was held that if the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation the assessing officer would be justified in making the addition back into the income of the assessee. 23. The decision in N.R. Portfolio Private Limited was quoted with approval wherein it has been held that creditworthiness or genuineness of a transaction regarding share application money de-pends on whether two parties are related or known to each other, or mode by which parties ap-proached each other, whether a transaction is entered into through written documentation to protect investment or whether the investor was a angel investor, the quantum of money invested, the credit-worthiness of the receipt, object and purposes for which payment/investment was made etc. The incorporation of a company and payment by banking channel etc. cannot in all cases tantamount to satisfactory discharge of onus. The principles which emerge were sums of money are credited as share capital/premium was summarised as follows:- 13.1. The assessee is under a le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have held that where any amounts were found credited in the books of the assessee in the previous year and the assessee offered no expla-nation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered, in the opinion of the ITO, not satisfactory, the sum so credited would be charged to income tax as income of the assessee during the relevant previous year. That Section 68 was inserted in the Act only to provide statutory recog-nition to a principle which had been clearly adumbrated in judicial decisions. Section 68 thus only codified the law as it existed before 01.04.1962 and did not introduce any new principle or rule. 26. We also take note of the Finance Bill, 2012 which brought about certain amendments to the Act with effect from the assessment year 20132014 wherein under the heading Measures to Prevent Generation and Circulation of Unaccounted Money it was pointed out that the onus of satisfactory explaining such credit remains on the person in whose books such sum is credited. If such person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation is found to be satisfactory then the sum is added to the total income of the person. That certain judicial pronouncements have creat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court is equally applicable to the interpretation of Section 68 of the 1961 Act. Thus, we can very well refer to the objects behind amendment to Section 68 by Finance Bill, 2012 which has taken note of various decision of the court where the courts have drawn a distinction and emphasised that in case of private placement of shares the legal regime should be different from that which is followed in the case of a company seeking share capital from the public at large. 28. Having taking note of the above referred decisions and the legal principles if we revert back to the factual position in this case, we find that the CIT(A) has analysed the three principles which are required to be fulfilled namely identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. It is not in dispute that the investors whose details we have referred in the earlier part of this judgment are all either group companies or having a common set of directors. Further the assessee has not been able to dislodge the factual findings recorded by the CIT(A) that the share application money was received from independent legal entities. By way of illustration if we take the case of Gainwell Textrade Private Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued in favour of another company and the balance remaining in the account was very meagre the bank account has been operated solely for the purpose of rotating money. 29. With regard to the other investor namely Mubarak Cosmetics Private Limited on perusal of the bank statements, it was found that the said company had transactions with the assessee between 23.07.2011 to 28.07.2011 and the entire sum remitted to the assessee by Mubarak Cosmetics Private Limited had come from Gainwell Textrade Private Limited. The bank statements of HIL Engineering was also thoroughly examined more particularly the pattern of transaction and it was held that the only apparent purpose for which the bank accounts have been used is to receive money from one account and transfer it to another. With regard to the investor Pavapuri Mercantile Private Limited the bank statements revealed that the entire sums are remitted by Pawapuri Mercantile Private Limited to the assessee had come from Gainwell Textrade Private Limited. The analysis done by the CIT(A) would reveal the nature and character of the transaction and the CIT(A) cannot be faulted to have held that the transactions are well planned and stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or premium is arbitrary and devoid of any financial or accounting rationale; the investors have not bothered to ensure protection of their investments; the investor company do not have any business operations worth noticing yet they have raised huge capital through issue of shares at a premium and also made investments in shares of other companies at a premium even though the other companies like them, did not have any promising business activities. Thus, on analysing the data which was available it is seen that each of the companies have invested in each other and the investments have been made by rotating funds from one account to another. The assessee has not been able to explain why the investors companies had applied for shares in the assessee's company at a high premium even though the face value of the share was Rs. 10/- per share. The pattern of transaction clearly shows that these investors companies had raised capital by issue of shares at a very high premium and the transaction is repetitive. Therefore, the mere fact that the transactions were though banking channels or that the companies where income tax assessees or registered with Registrar of Companies can in no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited is the wife of Mr. Agarwala. Thus, the facts clearly show that the doctrine of origin of origin has to be applied in the case on hand and this exercise has been rightly done by the CIT(A) by lifting the veil and en-quiring into the real nature of the transaction. The pattern of remittances made to the five investor companies and immediately thereafter to the assessee company clearly shows that the shares sub-scriptions were collected as a part of pre-meditated plan which has been conceived by the assessee. 33. The tribunal fell in error in holding that the CIT(A) has not pointed out any doubt or discrepancy with regard to the identity of the investors. The learned tribunal has posed a wrong question which has led to a wrong answer. The question is not whether the identity of the investor has to be estab-lished but the question was whether the investor had requisite creditworthiness and whether such creditworthiness was a make belief situation by means of a circular transaction and if the same had been established. The learned tribunal has held that the findings rendered by the CIT(A) that the assets in the form of investments have been created through rotating of money in betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions made by the assessee before the tribunal giving certain facts and figures regarding the expanding of business activities of the assessee. The assessee in their submis-sion contended that their business activity has increased considerably and for the purpose of expan-sion funds were required and therefore the assessee raised funds from various means, increment in share capital from associates being one of them. The fact clearly demonstrates that the source of the funds which have flown into the account of the assessee have substantially come from one com-pany namely Gainwell Textrade Private Limited and the said company had contributed to the other companies and the funds transferred to those companies were transferred to the assessee company invariably on the same day leaving a bank balance which was almost negligible and the bank state-ments reveal that the prior to the inflow of the funds into those investing companies, the bank bal-ance was negligible and after the transfer it was also negligible. The assessee had contended before the tribunal that the amount was credited through proper banking channels and the investing com-panies are body corporate registered with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28.11.2019 is restored and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue. 11.1 Further, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. One Point Commercial (P.) Ltd. [2024] 161 taxmann.com 737 (Calcutta), it has also been held as under: The impugned order passed by the Tribunal has recorded that from the bare perusal of the documents placed, it is revealed that all the share applicants are income tax assessees, they are filing their income tax returns, share application form and allotment letter is available on record which were filed in response to the notice under section 133(6), share application money was made by account payee cheques, details of the bank accounts belonging to the share applicants and their bank statements have been furnished and all the share applicants are having substantial creditworthiness represented by their capital and reserves. Though such is the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is not supported by facts. The Assessing Officer has held that the assessee was a private limited company which cannot issue shares in the same manner in which public limited company does and in so far as creditworthiness of the share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 668 (Calcutta). Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had occasion to observe that in the said case investors had no reason to invest huge amounts in business of that assessee and the entire transaction was done to circumvent the provisions of the Act. It has been held that the action of the assessing officer in treating such share application money u/s 68 of the Act as undisclosed cash credit was justified. The relevant portion from this order deserves to be extracted as under: 36. In Swati Bajaj, the court held that based on the foundational facts the department has adopted the concept of working backward leading to the assessee. The department would be well justified in considering the surrounding circumstances, the normal human conduct of a prudent investor, the probabilities that may spill over and then arrive at a decision. 37. Thus, the CIT(A) was right in adopting a logical process of reasoning considering the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations made against the assessee taking note of the minimum and proximate facts and circumstances surrounding the events on which charges are founded so as to reach a reasonable con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. [Para 8.2] With respect to the issue of genuineness of transaction, it is for the assessee to prove by cogent and credible evidence, that the investments made in share capital are genuine borrowings, since the facts are exclusively within the assessee's knowledge. Merely, proving the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus of the assessee, if the capacity or credit-worthiness has not been established. [Para 8.3] The Assessing Officer ought to conduct an independent enquiry to verify the genuineness of the credit entries. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer made an independent and detailed enquiry, including survey of the so-called investor companies from Mumbai, Kolkata and Guwahati to verify the credit-worthiness of the parties, the source of funds invested, and the genuineness of the transactions. The field reports revealed that the shareholders were either non-existent, or lac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a higher onus is required to be placed on the assessee since the information is within the personal knowledge of the assessee. The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee. [Para 14] On the facts of the present case, clearly the assessee company - respondent failed to discharge the onus required under section 68, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the assessee's income. [Para 15] 5.3. It is seen that in another case on somewhat similar facts, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of BalGopal Merchants (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in [2024] 162 taxmann.com 465 (Calcutta) has held that action u/s 68 of the Act was justified. 6. A close reading of the case laws cited (supra) reveals that mere filing of confirmations and the income tax details etc. are not enough to justify payment of monies as share premium when the financial aspects of the recipient company would not merit such investments unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
