9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 23/03/2015. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 11,22,827/- being expenditure incurred for the purposes of earning exempt income by invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noticed that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 5,631/- which is claimed as exempt. The AO by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules made disallowance of Rs. 11,22,827/- being expenses relatable to exempt income. Aggrieved, assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee could not file evidence or certificate issued u/s 197 of the Act. Hence, the AO in view of the provisions of section 194A of the Act are attracted and therefore disallowed these expenses. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), and CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The only plea made by the assessee is that the recipient parties, all are well known parties, and they have already disclosed the interest income in their respective returns of income, hence, he only requested that matter can be restored to the file of the AO for verification whether the recipient parties have included the interest income in their respective returns of income. To this, Ld. DR has not obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has received these amounts as under: 7.1. As can be seen that the first transaction has been undertaken on 27.02.2012. Perusal of the bank statement for A/C No.07660200000282 reveals that on 27.02.2012, a sum of Rs. 38,80,000/- has been credited in this bank a/c. out of this credit, a sum of Rs. 23,00,000/- has been transferred to Ajay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. on 27.02.2012 through RTGS bearing No.575825. Another amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- has been transferred through RTGS No.575823 again on 27.02.2012. Subsequent to this transfer, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been deposited in cash in this account on 27.02.2012. Further, a sum of Rs. 34,90,000/- has also been credited on 27.02.2012. With these two transfers the balance in the account increased to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay Alloy through RTGS no.575832 on same date. 7.5 On 14.03.2012, the account has been credited by a sum of Rs. 45,60,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been transferred to Ajay Alloys through RTGS No.575833 on 14.03.2012. 7.6 On 16.03.2012, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- has been credited in this account and the same amount has been transferred to Ajay Alloys through RTGS No.575843 on same date. 7.7 On 28.03.2012, a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- has been credited in this account out of which, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- has been transferred to Ajay Alloy through RTGS No.575849 on same date. The AO was of the view that the assessee is unable to prove these three ingredients prescribed u/s 68 of the Act. The AO also gone through the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the investor who has invested the sum of Rs. 2,53,00,000/- on account of share and share premium in the assessee company i.e., First Hi Fin Ltd. The reason for doubting the identity is that despite three summons issued u/s 131 of the Act i.e., on the address given by assessee at 101, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi-110060 and another address of Registered Officer as per MCA website, at '325, Vishal Tower, Distt. Centre, JanakPuri, New Delhi-110058. At both the addresses the ITI visited thrice as reported in the appellate order but in all the reports common view is that no such person is found. Secondly as per the balance sheet of First Hi Fin Ltd., the assessee is not shown as investment who made purchases of shares and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t found working on the given address. The AR of the appellant submitted fresh address of M/s First Hi Fin Ltd. before the AO but there also, the company was not found working and it was found to be an office of Chartered Accountant. All these facts established that M/s First Hi Fin Ltd. was a paper company and they have provided only accommodation entry to the appellant company and no shares of appellant company were purchased by them. The AR of the appellant has also contended that statement of Ms. Geetanjali was recorded behind the back of the appellant. However, as discussed above in this order Ms. Geetanjali was the witness of the appellant and Authorized Representative of the appellant company. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Goel produced her for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
