AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot enough to prove the creditworthiness in view of the fact that no substantive evidence was produced to show that any business was being carried out by the alleged shareholders or the sources of deposit in the banks existing in their names and also of the fact that the search conducted u/s132disclosed that said three companies are bogus." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 was filed on 15th October 2008 declaring income of Rs. 1,856/-. The said return of income was processed under the provisions of Section 143(1) and thereafter, the case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment. Finally, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 21.12.2010 at a total income of Rs. 30,01,856/-. The disparity between the returned and assessed income was on account of addition of share application money received from the following companies treating it as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. S.No. Name and address of company from whom claim of share capital/share premium made Value of shares at par (as claimed) Share premium (as clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatement and copies of share application money placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of CIT Vs Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334. Aggrieved by this order, Revenue has come in the present appeal before us. 5. It was argued by Ld. D.R. that Ld. CIT(A) has failed to properly appreciate the evidence gathered by the Department against the assessee and he further argued that merely by filing copies of share application forms and confirmation letters do not establish conclusively that the transactions are genuine and the mere fact that the payments were received through banking channel is not the sacrosanct and the A.O. is very much entitled to probe the matter further. The assessee had also failed to rebut the evidences gathered by Investigation Wing of the Department and these three companies were among 90 companies operated by Mr. Tarun Goyal for the purpose of carrying out the business of entry providers. 6. Ld. A.R. placed heavy reliance on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee company had discharged its onus that was lying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d hands till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then come forward to merely reject the same, without carrying out any verification or enquiry into the material placed before him. The case before us does not fall under this category and it would be a travesty of truth and justice to express a view to the contrary. The case of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (1986) 159 ITR exemplifies the category of cases where no action is taken by the Assessing Officer to verify or conduct an enquiry into the particulars about the creditors furnished by the assessee, including their income-tax file numbers. In the same category fall cases decided by this court in Dolphin Canpack (2006) 283 ITR 190, CIT v Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 433, CIT v Antartica Investment P. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 493 and CIT v Achal Investment Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211. To put it simply, in these cases the decision was based on the fundamental rule of law that evidence or material adduced by the assessee cannot be thrown out without any enquiry. The ratio does not extend beyond that. The boundaries of the ratio cannot be, and should not be, widened to include therein cases where the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent case from CIT v Oasis Hospitalities P Ltd. (supra). Except for discussing the modus operandi of the entry operators generally, the Assessing Officer in that case had not shown whether any link between them and the assessee existed. No enquiry had been made in this regard. Further, the assessee had not been confronted with the material collected by the investigation wing or was given an opportunity to cross examine the persons whose statements were recorded by the investigation wing. 41. In the case before us, not only did the material before the Assessing Officer show the link between the entry providers and the assessee- company, but the Assessing Officer had also provided the statements of Mukesh Gupta and Rajan Jassal to the assessee in compliance with the rules of natural justice. Out of the 22 companies whose names figured in the information given by them to the investigation wing, 15 companies had provided the so-called "share subscription monies" to the assessee. There was thus specific involvement of the assessee-company in the modus operandi followed by Mukesh Gupta and Rajan Jassal. Thus, on crucial factual aspects the present case stands on a completely different f....