TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eye of law and on the facts. 2(a). On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. A.O. has erred, both on the facts and in law, in initiating re-assessment proceedings u/s. 148 against the appellant after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year as the facts relating to the addition of share capital was clearly mentioned in the audited financial statements submitted along with the return for that year. (b). On both the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. A.O. has erred in initiating re-assessment proceedings u/s. 148 without application of mind in a mechanical manner. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on the facts and in law, in confirming t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il Agencies P. Ltd., Rs. 1,00,000/- from Arun Finvest P. Ltd. and Rs. 1,00,000/- from Tashi Contractors P;. Ltd. The AO observed that the above three persons, as per their statements recorded by Investigation wing, were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through the above companies and the assessee is one of the beneficiaries and no real transactions of share application money took place. The AO further observed that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to prove the creditworthiness of the entities from where the credits had being appearing in its books of account. Therefore, the AO made an addition u/s. 68 of the Act vide order dated 10.01.2008 passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the IT Act. The assessee cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been placed on plethora of decision. Some of which are as under : (i). CIT vs. SFIL Stockbroking Co. (2010) ITR 285 (Del.) (ii). Sarthak Securities Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO(2009) 329 ITR 110 (iii). Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. IT (2011) 338 ITR (Del.) (iv). CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd.(2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.) (v). Caneron Concrete Industries P. Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA No. 4114/De./11 dated 03.05.2013 (Delhi Tribunal) (vi) ACIT vs. Panchnan International P. Ltd. ITA No. 50/Del./2011 dated 23.11.2012 (vii). CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del.) (viii). CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 (Del.) (ix). DCIT vs M/s. GS Control P. Ltd. ITA No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned share capital money raised by the assessee is properly recorded in the books of account of the assessee, as detected by the Assessing Officer itself. As such, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to make disclosure of all material facts, necessary for assessment. Besides, the Assessing Officer has failed to comment upon the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee in order to satisfy the conditions of section 68 of the Act. It is an established principle of fundamental rule of law that where the assessee adduces evidence in support of its stand, it the duty of the Assessing Officer to examine it, which the Assessing Officer has failed to do so in the instant case. The ld. Authorities below have a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned to include therein cases where there exists material to implicate the assessee in a collusive arrangement with persons who are self-confessed accommodation entry providers". In the present case, as stated above, the assessee had furnished evidences, which have been thrown by the assessing officer without making any enquiry thereupon. We find that there is a vast difference between the cases, where there is substantial material to establish collusive arrangement and where the evidences furnished have been thrown without any enquiry. The distinguishing factors of the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. can further be seen in the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. (supra), whe....