TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned Assessing Officer in making aggregate addition of Rs. 12,00,20,500 on account of unsecured loan u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Learned CIT(Appeals) in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 12,00,20,500 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in confirming the action of the Ld.A.O. in making the impugned additions/disallowance and framing the impugned assessment order is contrary to law and facts, void ab initio, beyond jurisdiction, and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 6. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of the ld. A.O. in charging interest u/s. 234B and 234D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s holding any space of profit in the company, then, a special resolution has to be passed in the general meeting of the shareholders of the company before giving any fee to the director. The resolutions are also required to be registered with the Office of Registrar of the Companies. Accordingly, the assessee company had taken due permission from the shareholder before appointing Shri Arvind Khanna as consultant and the resolution was registered with the Office of the Registrar of Companies by filing Form No. 23. The assessee company had also entered an agreement for consultant services with Shri Arvind Khanna. As per this agreement, Shri Arvind Khanna had to render following services: i) Identification of the new business prospectus for the company; ii) Loan syndication and preparation of project report for large projects; iii) Consultancy in the field of investment in shares, the debentures and immoveable properties. 9. Learned AR submitted that copies of the above documents i.e. Form No.23 filed with the Office of the Registrar of the Companies, agreement for consultancy services were filed before the authorities below along with copies of the bills raised by the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d loan under sec. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 13. The facts in brief are that during the year, the assessee had received Rs. 7.5 crores from M/s. Neergiri Infra-structure Development Ltd. and Rs. 4.5 crores from M/s. Novlees Oblige State Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that both the above companies gave these amounts for the purpose of purchasing shares of the assessee company. However, assessee could not finalize the amount of premium on the shares and treated these amounts as unsecured loans in the balance sheet drawn on 31.3.2009. In the subsequent financial year, all the parties arrived at consensus on the figure of premium and shares were also allotted to them in the subsequent financial years. The authorities below did not agree and added the amount under sec. 68 of the Act on account of undisclosed income on the basis that assessee has failed to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors who have allegedly made the payment and that the assessee has been changing it stand on the issue of unsecured loans. 14. In support of the grounds, the learned AR submitted that in support of the claimed amount, the assessee had furnished confirmation of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order. He submitted that the assessee has kept changing its stand regarding the receipt of the amount. Initially, the amount was claimed as share application money and later on it was stated that the amount was treated as unsecured loan. The assessee also failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the claimed transaction. In this regard, he referred orders of the authorities below. He submitted that in absence of satisfaction of ingredients of sec. 68 of the Act, the authorities below have rightly added and upheld the same as unexplained amount under sec. 68 of the Act. 18. We find that one of the reasons for doubting the claimed credit by the Assessing Officer remained that the assessee was keeping on changing its stand about the nature of receipt of the amount. The explanation of the assessee in this regard remained that Nobleese Ltd. had paid the amount for purchasing property through the assessee and subsequently converted it into share application money for which shares were allotted in the next year. It was explained that both the companies i.e. Neelgiri Infra-structure Dev. Ltd. and Nobleese Obliged Estates Pvt. Ltd. had advanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under sec. 133(6) dated 11.10.2001 to Nobeleese Ltd. with respect to the amount given of Rs. 4,50,20,500 and had also asked to file the ITR of assessment year 2009-10, bank statement and confirmed copy of account. All these documents were duly filed by Nobeleese Ltd. directly with the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 17.11.2011. This fact has also been confirmed by Nobeleese Ltd. in their affidavit dated 18.9.2012. The Assessing Officer chose to ignore these documents while passing the order. 19. The assessee had also filed confirmation from Neelgiri with the copies of cheque during assessment proceedings vide letter dated 28.11.2011, however, no notice under sec. 133(6) was issued to Neelgiri. The assessee had also filed the confirmation of Neelgiri with bank details, PAN, Ward No. It was submitted that Neelgiri Ltd. is a part of India Bulls Real Estates Group. It is thus clear that both the parties have confirmed the investment and premium paid and both are regularly assessed with the department. The assessee has also pointed out and noted by the Learned CIT(Appeals) at page No. 10 of the first appellate order that on inspection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal?, for short) in the case of Goel Estate Sons Pvt. Ltd. in relation to assessment year 2006-07. 2. learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse and in fact one Shri S.H. Mallick had given a statement, which is Revenue-produced in the assessment order saying that he had provided accommodation entries and the said statement conclusively proves that share money of '30,00,000/- allegedly received by the respondent-assessee from 5 companies are sham and bogus transactions. 3. We have examined the said contention and find that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has filed confirmation letters from the companies, their PAN number, copy of bank statements, affidavits and balance sheet. Thereafter the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee to produce the said Directors/Parties. Assessee expressed its inability to produce them. The Assessing Officer did not consequent thereto conduct any inquiry and closed the proceedings. This is a case where the Assessing Officer has failed to conduct necessary inquiry, verification and deal with the matter in depth spe....