TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The first effective grievance of the assessee in its appeal is against disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 1,95,000 claimed by the assessee. 3. We heard both sides and perused the orders of the Revenue authorities on this issue. The expenditure in question disallowed by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A), relates to ROC fee and stamp duty incurred by the assessee company for the purpose of increasing its Authorised Share Capital from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2,81,02,500. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure, holding the same to be of capital nature. The CIT(A), in the impugned order, confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. He referred to the Apex Court decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee persons, as per the details given below - Sl. No. Name of the person Share application money(Rs.) Unsecured loans (Rs.) Total (Rs.) 1. Sri G R K Raju 1,18,60,000 26,00,000 1,44,60,000 2. Ms G.Uma 71,94,200 9,00,000 80,94,200 3. Ms. P.Girija .... 41,26,000 41,26,000 TOTAL 1,90,54,200 76,26,000 2,66,80,200 During the assessment proceedings, assessee was required to furnish details in respect of increase in share capital and unsecured loans, confirmatory letters, details regarding mode of receipt and bank statements, alongwith copies of IT returns of loan creditors or any other evidence to prove their credit-worthiness. Assessee filed the required confirmatory statements and details of their sources. 6. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven in the confirmations given by them were also not complete. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer concluded that the creditworthiness of Shri GRK Raju and his own loan creditors was not established and added the total of Rs. 1,44,68,000 as unexplained credits in the books of the assessee. 7. As for the investor/creditors Smt.G.Uma, assessee had filed a confirmation letter from her explaining the source of investment as under : Sl. No. Description Amount (Rs.) 1. Refund of investment in M/s. USP Organics P. Ltd. Loan from Banks 20,00,000 2. Amounts raised from Dr.Raj A.Dantuluri, NRI 20,00,000 3. Amount received by her husband from Nagarjuna Management Services P. Ltd. 20,00,000 4. Loan raised from Smt. M.Mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urce of investment or bank accounts had not been given therein. Concluding, therefore, that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the loan creditor, treated the unsecured loan of Rs. 41,26,00 shown in the name of Smt.P.Girija as unexplained credit under S.68 of the Act. 10. In support of her action of treating the alleged investments/unsecured loans as unexplained, the Assessing Officer drew support from various judicial pronouncements, including the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT V/s. Rasun Exports P. Ltd. (ITA 1185/Hyd/2009); decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of R B Mittal V/s CIT(246 ITR 283); besides of the Apex Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant company on account of share application money contributed by Sri GRK Raju and Miss. Uma. The addition to the extent of Rs. 1,18,60,000/- and Rs. 71,94,200/-, on account of share application money contributed by them, is deleted." As for the unsecured loans of Rs. 26,00,000 in the name of GRK Raju, and of Rs. 9 lakhs in the name of Smt.G.Uma and Rs. 41,26,000 in the name of Smt. P.Girija, the CIT(A), concurring with the findings of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus that lies on it, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 12. Aggrieved by the addition sustained by the CIT(A), assessee preferred its appeal ITA No.562/Hyd/2012, whereas contesting the relief granted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the grounds of the Revenue in its appeal. 14. As for the grievance of the assessee in its appeal, being the additions under S.68 of the Act, sustained on account of unsecured loans, we find from the records that evidences in the form of confirmation letters from the concerned parties and copies of income-tax returns to justify the sources have been produced before us. The CIT(A) has accepted the same set of evidences for accepting the sources for the share application money from two individuals, namely, GVK Raju and G.Uma, but has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer, with respect to unsecured loans under S.68 of the Act. We are of the opinion that the CIT(A), having accepted the genuineness of the transactions, identit....