TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by deep and detailed investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department. Moreover, the facts in the present case are distinguishable from the above cited case. 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal." 3. From the above grounds it is gathered that the only grievance of the department relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 14,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.2012, declaring an income of Rs. 32,170/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the said notice, the assessee submitted that the return filed earlier u/s 139 of the Act may be treated as filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee was involved in money laundering business and received bogus/accommodation entries and that the assessee had been beneficiaries of the accommodation entry in the shape of bog....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5 Devi Ram H-16/332, Bapa Nagar,Karol Bagh, New Delhi 2,00,000.00 6 Pradeep Kumar K-188, Vijaya Vihar,Sector-1, Rohini, New Delhi-85 2,00,000.00 7 Krishna Cinema (India) Pvt. Ltd. 19, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 5,00,000.00 Total 14,50,000.00 The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 14,50,000.00 being total amount credit in the bank account u/s 68 of the Income Tax irrespective of fact that assessee has received share application money of Rs. 14,50,000/- received by payee account cheque from one incorporated bodies and six natural person as details given above. 2. The existence and identity of the entities from whom the share application money for allotment of equity shares were received by the Assessee Company during the financial year 2001-02, have been duly proved during the course of assessment proceedings and supported with the evidence in the form of: - Confirmation from all the entities who had applied for allotment of equity shares of the assessee company: - Proof of filing of Income Tax Return of various entities in the form of copies of Income Tax return acknowledgements; - Share ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....... 9. The appellant has duly established the primary sources of funds and also the identity of the shareholders, their capacity and the genuineness of the transactions by furnishing all the relevant details evidences as per the requirements of the law and as per provisions of Section 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961. The prescribed Form No. 2 in respect of allotment of shares to the shareholders has also been duly furnished by the appellant to the ROC. In view of the facts involved and also judicial pronouncements/decisions on identical facts/issues, it can be held that the appellant has fully discharged its initial onus in terms of section 68 of the Act. There is no indication or positive material finding on record to establish that the appellant's own money/fund has been re-routed to its own coffer in the form of share capital/share application money in the names of nonexisting fictitious entities. I, therefore, find the appellant has duly explained the nature and primary sources of its fund credited in its books of account.........Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 14,50,000/- as unexplained income of the appellant u/s 68 of the Act is directed to be deleted." 10. The identity, cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer had ignored the submissions of the appellant and the documentary evidence, which had been produced before him. 22. It is submitted that the share application moneys having been received by account payee cheques drawn on their respective Bank accounts of the share applicants, the appellant had discharged the burden which lay on it in respect of the share application moneys. This proposition is supported by the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Additional CIT Vs Bahri Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 244 and the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). Thus the appellant having discharged the burden, it is the Revenue which had to verify the genuineness of the share application moneys and the premia in case he had any doubt whatsoever. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer did not discharge the burden which had shifted on him." 10. The reliance was also placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs Makhni and Tyagi Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 433 (Del.) • CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) • CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 held that even if share application money received by the assessee company is from alleged bogus shareholder, whose identity is produced by the assessee company, the revenue can always proceed against such shareholders and if necessary reopen their individual assessment. The ld. CIT(A) ultimately by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. deleted the addition by observing in para 5.1.8 of the impugned order as under: "5.1.8 Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has dismissed the department's appeals in limine vide its recent orders in the case of CIT Vs Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Dwarkadhish Capital Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 911/2010 and 913/2010 order dated 02.08.2010), CIT Vs green Tech Tower Builders Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1113/2010 order dated 12.08.2010) and CIT Vs Ultratech Finance & Investment Ltd. (ITA No. 1122/2010 order dated 12.08.2010). In the case of Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Dwarkadhish Capital Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court ....