TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee and the fact of share capital is corroborated from the balance sheet, it is not open to consider the source of source in the case of the appellant. (iv) That there being no dispute about the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, there is no ground or basis for confirming addition of Rs. 3,10,00,000/-. (v) That orders of the lower authorities are not based on proper appreciation of facts and are in total disregard to establish legal principles. 2(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 23,280/- as unexplained credit balance relating to M/s Orient Fashion Export (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ii) That addition is without proper appreciation of facts and merely based on presumption and surmises. 3. That orders of the lower authorities are not justified on facts and the same are bad in law." 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the year, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of readymade garments. The assessee has filed the return of income on 7.10.2010 for the assessment year 2010-11 declaring an income of Rs. 34,80,096/-. The case was processed u/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of the transactions. The Revenue Authority only emphasize upon the personal appearance of the creditor i.e. Sh. Suveer Arora who is an NRI which is contrary to the law and facts on record. He also draw our attention towards the order passed by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and stated that there is no dispute that Sh. Suveer Arora is a regular Income Tax assessee in Delhi and the facts of share capital is supported from his assessment record. The share capital is through account payee cheque and copy of the Bank's statement has also been placed on record and the share capital is corroborated from his Bank statement. The assessment of Mr. Suveer Arora has already been completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act and the issue of share capital which was duly considered and verified, which has been corroborated from letter dated 14.2.2013 furnished during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Sh. Suveer Arora. He stated that inspite of these facts the addition in dispute has been made by the Revenue Authorities which deserve to be deleted. In support of his contention he relied upon the following case laws and stated that the issue in dispute is squarel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through his NRE account No. 0369040200000017 with J&K Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. (Mentioned at page no. 54 of the Paper Book vide Confirmation dated 12th March, 2013). In support of share capital, the following documents were filed before the lower authorities. a. Confirmation from Mr. Suveer Arora b. Copy of PAN Card of Mr. Suveer Arora c. Copy of Bank Statement showing the investment made and source thereof. d. Copy of Form No.2 regarding allotment of shares e. Copy of Passport of Mr. Suveer Arora f. Copy of Income Tax Return and assessment order passed uls. 143(3) for A.Y. 2010-11. g. Copy of letter dated 14.02.2013 during the assessment proceedings in the case of Sh. Suveer Arora in respect to issue of share capital to assessee. h. Affidavit of Sh. Suveer Arora. 7.1 We find from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the correctness of all these documents or made any adverse comments in respect of the same. Further, there is no adverse information from Investigation Wing or from any other agency. As per these documents, it is evident that assessee has established identity, source and genuineness of share capital. We find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are application money to assessee's taxable income which was deleted by the Commissioner(Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).On appeal High Court held that, there was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer once the assessee had furnished all the relevant material. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under S. 68. (A Y. 2004-05). C. CIT v. KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD., SLP (CC) no. 15640 of 2012, dated 17-09-2012 (Supreme Court) Issue Involved: "Whether once the assessee has discharged the initial burden by filing adequate evidence/material, Revenue is supposed to dislodge the initial burden discharged by the assessee and to throw the ball again in the assessee's' court demanding the assessee to give some more proofs, as the documents produced earlier by the assessee either become suspect or are rendered insufficient in view of the material produced by the Department rebutting the assessee's documentary evidence?" Decided in Favour of : Assessee Held: The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neness of share capital in the light of documents produced and settled legal principles clarified above. Even the Assessing Officer has also not disputed the identity, source and genuineness of share capital. We are also of the view that it is unnecessary burden upon the assessee by pressuring it to bring the creditor from the foreign country which is contrary to the facts of the case as well as evidence produced by the assessee. 7.3 Besides, above case laws, the Hon'ble Apex Court also in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports 216 CTR 195 has held that that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. 7.4 We also find that Ld. DR relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Empire Builtech Pvt. Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 110 (Delhi) which is distinguishable to the facts of the present case, because in para 8 of the said judgment it is mentioned that these investors did not submi....