TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 961
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 148 was issued. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) adding an amount of Rs. 5 lac as income u/s 68, on the ground that the assessee has received bogus accommodation entries from M/s Hopewin Admark and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., based on information received from the investigation wing. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal without success. 5. Before us the assessee challenged the reopening. On merits he submitted that the assessee had filed the following documents before the A.O. and hence discharged its burden of proof. "The assessee has filed following documents vide their letter dated 14.12.2011 and 28.12.2011: 1. Share application from received from Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services (Pvt.) Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of M/s Finlease Pvt. Ltd., judgment dated 15.02.2012. He also relied on the case laws referred to by the first appellate authority. 9. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and a perusal of the papers on record and the orders of the authorities below, we hold as follows: The undisputed fact is that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry in this case. The assessee has given evidence and documents such as share application form, confirmation letters, copy of tax returns, balance sheets, affidavits etc. which are listed in para '5' of this order. 10. There is no investigation much less enquiry made by the Assessing Officer. There is no evidence with the Assessing Officer to disbelieve the ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 68." (b) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Gupta 207 CTR 115, has been relied upon by the Delhi ITAT in the order in the case of "Babita Gupta", in ITA No. 2897/06, wherein it is held "that in the facts of the case before us it may be seen that from the very beginning Ld. Assessing Officer had shifted entire burden upon the assessee and no material was brought by him to prove his allegation that the impugned amount represented assessee company's undisclosed income. Therefore, on the ground alone the entire addition deserves to be deleted and may kindly be held so." (Emphasis ours). (c ) In case of CIT vs. Jay Dee Securities and Finance Ltd. ITA 327/2010 & 159/2010 (Allahabad High Court), the Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is required in law and the other in which the Assessing Officer 'sits back with folded hands' till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions. The present case falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. This would be apparent from the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order to the following effect:- "Investigation made by the Investigation Wing of the department clearly showed that this was nothing but a sham transaction of accommodation entry. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the said amount of Rs. 1,11,50,000/- may not be added to its income. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and fall in the second category and are more in line with facts of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra). There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer once the assessee had furnished all the material which we have already referred to above. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the question is answered in the negative. The decision of the Tribunal is correct in law." e) In the case of Finlease Pvt.Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (supra) in ITA 232/2012 judgement dt. 22.11.2012 at para 6 to 8, it is held as follows. "6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case is based on the peculiar facts which attract the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra). Where the assessee adduces evidence in support of the share application monies, it is open to the Assessing Officer to examine it and reject it on tenable grounds. In case he wishes to rely on the report of the investigation authorities, some meaningful enquiry ought to be conducted by him to establish a link between the assessee and the alleged hawala operators, such a link was shown to be present in the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the revenue. We are therefore not to be understood to convey that in all cases of share capital added under Section 68, the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra) is attracted, irrespective of ....