TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder sec. 68 of the Act be deleted. 2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 3. The facts in brief are that assessee a company is engaged in the business of leasing, finance and hire purchase. The assessee being a nonbanking finance company is bound to follow mandatory guidelines issued by RBI regarding the classification of assets, recognition of income and norms for making provisions. The assessee contended that as per guidelines issued by RBI, income pertaining to non-performing assets should not be considered as income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer raised query about the rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issuance of cheque from these accounts, cash was deposited in these accounts. The Learned AR submitted that against the receipt of share application money in cash, the assessee had filed affidavits and fan of the parties, details of which have been made available at page No. 57 of the paper book. All the persons who had applied in cash had confirmed in their affidavits that they had received the money back from the assessee upon cancellation of their applications for allotment of shares. The money received was thus refunded to them in the next financial year and the date of refunding of money has been mentioned at page No. 57 of the paper book. He pointed out that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny on 16.11.2007 and the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steels & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Del.) to support his contention that mere suspicion cannot be a basis to make addition of share application money and in such cases the Assessing Officer ought to have examined the source in the assessment of respective share subscribers and not in the case of a company. He also placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Virandvan Farms (P) Ltd. - ITA No. 71/2015 and Ors. - order dated 12.8.2015 (Del.); ii) CIT vs. Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No. 7778/2015 (Delhi) - order dated 13.10.2015; iii) CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. -ITA No. 429/2003 - order dated 21.12.2015 (Delhi High Court) iv) Oswal Pumps P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon, we are of the view that primary onus always lie upon the assessee to establish genuineness of its claim. IT can be discharged by furnishing necessary information supported with evidence about the claim i.e. share applicants in the present case. In the present case, the assessee had furnished details of the share applicants supported with some evidence. These are two categories of the share applicants in the present case. The first category was of those share applicants who had paid share application money in cash and the second category of the share applicants was those paid share applicant money through cheque. In the first category of share application,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted with their affidavits, income-tax returns and bank statements. Besides, it was also submitted that assessee had allotted shares to these applicants. Thus, we find that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by furnishing the above evidences and submissions that shares were allotted by the assessee to them. The onus thereafter was shifted upon the Assessing Officer to rebut those evidences and submissions of the assessee to justify the addition of Rs. 7,84,000 made by the Assessing Officer on this account. Merely on the basis that cash was deposited in their account immediately before issuance of share application money by them from their respective bank account an addition under section 68 of the Act cannot be made on the basis ....