TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act". 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2010 declaring total loss of Rs. 39,957/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment on 19.03.2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The AO while making the assessment treated the Share Capital of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195, decision of CIT vs. Pranav Foundation Ltd. 51 Taxman.com 98 (Madras), CIT Vs. Kuber Ploritech Ltd. 2 Taxman 136 (Del.) and ACIT Vs. ETC Industries Ltd. (2012) 21 taxman.com 457 (Indore). The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that in case of Jafferali K. Rattonsey Vs ADIT [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum), Ravinderkumar Toshniwal Vs DIT ITA No.5302/M/2008, Mausuma S. Tankiwala Vs ITO [ITA No.1867/M/2014], Jyoti D. Shah Vs ITO [ ITA No.1843/M/2012] and Jatin P. Ajmera Vs ITO 7859/M/2011, the addition on the basis of statement of Mukesh Choksi has been deleted by the Mumbai Tribunal. The ld AR for assessee also elide on the decision of Indore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application money from Mihir Agency P. Ltd. The assessee has disclosed the same in the record of the return submitted with ROC. The reply of the assessee was not accepted by AO. The AO concluded that the assessee followed the modus operandi as explained by Mukesh Choksi. In the investigation conducted by investigation wing of the department it was exposed that this group was engaged in providing accommodation entries. And the assessee has not refuted the statement of Mukesh Choksi, the balance sheet of Mihir Agency P. Ltd gathered during the assessment do not reflect the investment and treated the share capital as undisclosed income of the assessee. During the First Appellate stage the ld CIT(A) also relied on the report of investigation wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of ITAT in holding that the purchase and sale of share are genuine and therefore, the assessing officer was not justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 1 410 8484/-represented unexplained investment under section 69 of income tax act cannot be faulted. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Versus Lovely Exports (P) Limited [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC), while considering the issue of share application money held; "if share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose name are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law but this amount of share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under s....