TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the entire facts discussed in detail the remand report about the discrepancies in the Bank Statements of the said parties as obtained u/s 131 and as furnished by the assessee before CIT(A). 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) in relying upon the decision given in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 199 (SC). In the case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd., the A.O. did not ask the assessee to produce any of the investor shareholders. However, in the instant case the assessee was specifically asked and given a number of opportunities to produce the directors of all the three share applicant companies but yet none could be produced before the A.O. by the assessee company. Neither the said parties were found at the address provided by the assessee as mentioned in the assessment order and remand report." 3. The only issue for consideration in this appeal relates to deleting the addition of Rs.80,00,000/- made under sec. 68 of the Act on account of income from undisclosed sources being the amount received as share application money from three parties viz. M/s. Hub Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants were existing and assessed with the Income-tax Department, it was pleaded that the share applicants were genuine. However the assessee failed to provide bank statements for F.Y. 2006-07 of the aforesaid three companies. 5. The assessing officer from the details of pay orders submitted by the assessee found that all the three pay orders were obtained from Mahamedha Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Noida. The AO therefore, sent summons to Mahameda Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Noida requiring it to send the bank statements of the three companies from 1.04.2006 till the date of summons. From the information received from the bank the assessing found that in case of M/s. Hub Services P. Ltd. opened bank account No.1002014026499 on 31st March, 2007 whereas the pay order was dated 29.09.2006. M/s. R.S. Accessories P. Ltd., also opened account No 1002014026502 on 31st March, 2007 whereas the pay order was dated 29.09.2006. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the Pay Orders were made from the said accounts on 29.09.2006 was found to be incorrect. M/s. Transaction India P. Ltd. had two accounts bearing No.1002014026258 and 10020140025746. Both these accounts were opened during F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e addresses, as also copies of their acknowledgements. The AO had also not pointed out any discrepancy in the facts that all the shareholders were assessed to income-tax in Delhi and in spite of these facts no material has been brought on record by him to disprove the claim of the assessee that these three companies had invested in the share capital of the assessee. The assessee had filed confirmations from all the three companies. The assessee relied on several decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195. The learned CIT(A) however, deleted the addition relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and other decisions on the issue. 8. Before us the learned Sr. DR submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is non-speaking order. He has not considered the facts brought on record by the AO that the share applicants were not available at the addresses given. The learned CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate that M/s. R.S. Accessories P. Ltd. and M/s. Hub Services P. Ltd. opened bank account after purchase of pay orders from Mahamedha U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Association and copies of acknowledgement of returns for Assessment Year 2005-06 in the cases of all the three parties. The assessee by filing these evidences has claimed that initial onus has been discharged. Since the identity of the share applicants has been established, the contention of the assessee is that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. The AO had conducted enquiry from Mahamedha Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Noida. We have gone through the information obtained from the bank. It is seen that the bank account in the case of M/s. Hub Services P. Ltd. having Account No.1002014026499 was opened on 31st March, 2007. The assessee received share application money of Rs.25,00,000/- by Pay order No.011784 dated 29.09.2006. Therefore, when A/c No.1002014026499 was opened on 31st March, 2007, the Pay Order could not be made from the bank account of M/s. Hub Services P. Ltd. with Mahameda Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Noida. Similarly the Bank account of M/s. R.S. Accessories P. Ltd. bearing No.1002014026502 was also opened on 31st March, 2007, whereas the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was received by Pay Order No.011785 dated 29th September, 2006. This Pay Order cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be understood as to why anyone would go for purchase of pay orders from a bank located at long distance in Noida. When the AO confronted the assessee vide order-sheet entry dated 24.12.2009 by issuing show cause notice as to why the amount of Rs.80,00,000/- claimed to have been received by the assessee as share application money from three companies, should not be treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee vide letter dated 29.12.2009 filed reply reiterating that the identity of all the three applicants was established, their PAN number and confirmations were filed. It was also contended that they were existing income-tax assessees and were filing returns with ROC. 12. It is also interesting to note that the assessee filed photo copies of undated photo copies of affidavits of the share applicants, undated copy of Resolution, and undated confirmations. On one hand the assessee files confirmations and affidavits and on the other hand the parties are not found at the addresses when the assessing officer issues summons to them. The logical conclusion is that the assessee do not wants to produce them before assessing officer for best reasons known to him. Thus i....