TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... "The order of the Learned CIT (APPEALS) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(APPEALS) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 99,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act being the bogus/unexplained share capital routed through entry operators. 2.1The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. 2.2The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee is involved in the racket of obtaining accommodation entries and the ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court's judgement in the case of M/s. Divine Leasing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntal in providing accommodation entries. The assessee received an amount of Rs. 99,00,000/-from the aforesaid persons (hereinafter referred to as alleged entry providers) which included Rs. 4,95,000/- as share capital and Rs. 94,05,000/- as share premium. During assessment proceedings the assessee in support of its claim of genuineness of the aforesaid amounts received towards share capital and share premium, provided certain documents which have been listed in paragraph No. 5.0 of order dated 26.2.2010 of Ld. CIT(A). During assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO vide order sheet entry dated 10.12.2007 asked the assessee to produce the Directors of the aforesaid alleged entry operators. However the assessee failed to produce them before the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee company are aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A). On one hand Revenue has filed appeal against the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition of Rs. 99,00,000/- ; on the other hand the assessee company has filed cross objection against failure of the Ld. CIT(A) in giving a decision on the grounds mentioned above. 4. In the course of hearing before us we have heard both sides and have also perused the material available on record. Ld. DR vehemently contended that the appellant company should have produced Directors of alleged entry operators before the Ld. AO and the Ld. AO was justified in taking an adverse view since the assessee company failed to produce them before the Ld. AO. He further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) shou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Ld. AO. Moreover, there are also conflicting evidences which have not been reconciled by the lower authorities. On one hand the alleged entry operators have stated an oath before investigation wing of Income Tax Department that they have provided accommodation entries. On the other hand during assessment proceedings they have given confirmation in favour of the assessee and have also responded in support of the assessee in response to letter of the Ld. AO seeking information u/s 133(6) of I.T. Act. When somebody provides contradictory evidences at two different times or before two different authorities, as the alleged entry operators have done , it was appropriate to subject the alleged entry operators to further examination / cross-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry of the racket. We also have considered with reverence the following observations of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. (Delhi) (2013) 214 Taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) :- "8. This court is conscious of a view taken in some of the previous decisions that the assessee cannot be faulted if the share applicants do not respond to summons, and that the state or revenue authorities have the wherewithal to compel anyone to attend legal proceedings. However, that is merely one aspect. An assessee's duty to establish that the amounts which the AO proposes to add back, under section 68 are properly sourced, does not cease by merely furnishing the names, addresses and PAN particulars, or relying on e....