TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings were attended by the counsel of the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the assessee has not submitted the details in response to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional; evidences as per provisions of Rule 46A (1) since this is not an exceptional case. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the decision in the case of M/s Lovely Exports ignoring that the facts in the said case are essentially different in as much as in this case the assessee company is a private company and no member of the public participated. 6. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has ignored the fact that since the identity of the subscriber has not been established it will be impractical at this stage to go for other two criteria i.e. creditworthiness of the investor and the genuineness of transaction being, necessary ingredients required for invoking section 68 of the IT Act, 196....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional ground and additional evidence. However, while adjudicating on this ground, she dismissed the admitted ground of appeal. The operative part of CIT(A)'s order in this regard is reproduced below:- "There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer acted on the basis of specific information provided by the Investigation Wing so there was a valid ground before the Assessing Officer to act on the information. This shows that the Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction after careful consideration of facts and material on record." 5. Regarding merits of the case, the Ld AR submitted the following submissions:- i) That loans were received by appellant through banking channel from directors, their wives and parents only and that all are income tax payees and has been filing returns since last year. ii) That the identity of the lender is duly proved, they are income tax assessee and also either working as director or are father or mother or wife of director. iii) That creditworthiness of lender is also proved as they had declared source of income and are filing income tax return. iv) That the appellant had given interest on the amount of loan and had deducted TDS thereon. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Value Capital Service Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 has held that even if the share applicant did not have the sources to make the investment the onus is on the revenue to show that such investment is emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enabnle it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. Relying on the various documents placed on record and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble SC in the case of M/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. which is directly on the issue of share capital, the addition on account of share capital cannot be sustained. The Assessing Officer has no where proved that documents in support of the identity of the share holders have not been placed on record and they were forged documents. In view of the discussions made above the addition of `.9,73,000/- is deleted." 8. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal against the above deletions of Rs.21,42,000/- being Rs.11,69,000/- unsecured loans and Rs. 9,73,000/- share capital and assessee has filed cross objection in so far as on the point that Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AR, on the other hand, argued that in the interest of justice if Ld CIT(A) during appellate proceedings wants some additional information/document he can call it as per provisions of Rule 46A. Therefore, ld CIT(A) had rightly accepted the additional evidence. He further argued that additional evidence was admitted only after calling remand report from the Assessing Officer. Regarding merits of the case the Ld AR argued that assessee had received only Rs. 5,70,000/- as share application money whereas the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 9,73,000/-. He took us to page 177 of paper book where he invited our attention to the fact that the difference between the share capital of 31.3.2001 and 31.1.2002 is only Rs. 5,70,000/- and not Rs. 9,73,000/-. He further argued that all amounts of share application money were received through A/c payee cheques and invited our attention to pages 5-31 of paper book wherein copies of affidavits, applicant's request for shares, copies of cheques issued by applicant and copies of bank account of applicant were placed. 15. Regarding addition on account of fresh un-secured loans, the Ld AR argued that during appellate proceedings each and eve....