9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave adequate creditworthiness to make investments in the assessee company.
Even on the basis of balance sheet and Profit and Loss account for F.Y. 2015-16, the creditworthiness of the assessee's subscribers could be judged. Therefore assessee has discharged its onus cost upon it by the statute and in our opinion, addition cannot be made mainly on the ground that notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act were not complied with. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing receipt of payments through banking channel, form no.2 for allotment of shares, etc. The ld. AO also issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to share subscribers and out of 5 share subscribers only two subscribes namely; Good Point Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Innova Commercial Pvt. Ltd., furnished the reply with the remaining three parties's replies namely; Aakansha Advisory Services Pvt. Ld., Sunirmiti Mercantile Pvt. Ltd and Arihant Enterprises Ltd., were received in the office of the ld. AO on 23.12.2019, whereas the assessment was framed vide order dated 21.12.2019. Accordingly, the ld. AO issued show cause notice to the assessee on 17.12.2019, to explain why the share application money received from three parties till 20.12.2019, which have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant assessee's case is of FY 2016-17. Thus, In this scenario also the appellant assessee has not provided the documents/information asked by the Assessing officer for the relevant AY and in absence of which the Assessing officer has gone ahead and made the addition. Moreover, the contention of the appellant assessee that these parties have sent their replies to the Ld AO after passing of the assessment order cannot be accepted as neither they have submitted the documents in time in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. Further, even the documents/information claimed to have been submitted after the passing of the assessment order by the AO are not relevant to the case for this AY. viii. Further, the same evidences have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and net worth as on 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017 respectively which is available in the Paper Book. The ld. AR submitted that considering the above facts and the documents of the it is quite apparent that these parties were having sufficient creditworthiness. The ld. AR thereafter submitted that the subscribers were regular income tax assessee's and therefore, their identity was proven. The ld. AR finally submitted that the assessee has filed all the evidences before the authorities below and the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act were also replied therefore the addition as confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is wrong and against the facts of the case on record as assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and the ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h as balance sheet, Profit and Loss account for F.Y. 2015-16 and not for F.Y. 2016-17, which is year under consideration. Therefore, the decision of the ld. CIT (A) may kindly be affirmed by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 08. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessee has raised share capital of ₹1,50,000/- through five subscribers during the year. Although the assessee has filed all the evidences as called for by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings and notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to the subscribers of the shares. We note that out of 5 share subscribers, only two of them replied to the notices and the remaining three subscri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit-worthy or were such who could advance the allowed loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do any further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the burden that lay on him then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises. It cannot, therefore, be said that any question of law arose in these cases. The High Court was, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
