AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) Rs. 10,25,000 received from M/s Galaxy Cornmonsales Pvt Ltd. (ii) Rs. 6,50,000 received from M/s Umapati Vinmay Pvt Ltd. (iii) Rs. 15,00,000 received from Sh Kunal Shikarpuri. It is prayed that the addition made to income be directed to be deleted. 3. That The Assessee company has discharged the onus cast upon it in law to establish the identity and credit worthiness of the share holder who had subscribed to the share capital of the company, and the genuineness of the transactions. The addition made to income u/s 68 of the Act, is .thus illegal, without jurisdiction, and requires to be deleted in entirety. 4.01 That the addition made to income is incorrect and is against law in view of the decision of The Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 195, subsequently followed and applied by The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Stellar Investment Ltd (Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble Courts have held that where the share application money is alleged to have been received from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, the Revenue should proceed to reopen the assessments of such share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t worthiness and genuineness of the amount received and sought no further details, information, explanation from the assessee company, and did not also make any further investigation from the share holder. 5. That the appellant company craves leave to amend, modify, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal above, and to add any further ground of appeal, before and during the appeal proceedings. 4.01 That the addition made to income is incorrect and is against law in view of 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was e-filed on 30.9.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 33,23,900/- by the assessee company. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS under compulsory category and a statutory notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 3.8.2012 was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act with a questionnaire was issued on 31.5.2013 and after the change of the charge of the case, new notice u/s. 142(1) dated 28.12.2013 was issued and served on the assessee personally. In response thereto, the assessee' Director and Sh. Vipin Jain, CA attended the proceedings on behalf of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 22.2.2014 issued by M/s Galaxy Commonsales Pvt. Ltd. confirming the investment made in assesee company and further giving their updated address; copy of letter dated 21.2.2014 by M/s Umapati Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. confirming the investment made in assessee company and further giving their updated address and the copy of written submissions filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not disputed by the AO in this order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in spite of the aforesaid documentary evidence filed by the assessee before the revenue authority for establishing the creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of the transactions. The Revenue Authority only emphasize upon the productions of details of persons with complete address of the new investors alongwith details of share allotted to them. The assessee was also asked to produce the copies of bank statement of investors and their income tax details. The assessee submitted all these documents. Ld. Counsel of the assessee also stated that the since the onus of proving cash credit in the books is reubuttable. The assessee has to discharge the initial onus by proving the identity of the creditor by filing the confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evant period; copy of bank statement of the assessee company reflecting the transactions ; copy of notice dated 17.2.2014 issued by the AO requesting the assessee to produce the controlling persons of the share applicant companies in order to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties; copy of the letter dated 22.2.2014 issued by M/s Galaxy Commonsales Pvt. Ltd. confirming the investment made in assesee company and further giving their updated address; copy of letter dated 21.2.2014 by M/s Umapati Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. confirming the investment made in assessee company and further giving their updated address and the copy of written submissions filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not disputed by the AO in this order. 7.1 We further note 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. There is thus no ground or basis to dispute the correctness of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee 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 Court in the case CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 220 in which it has been held: Cash credits--Unexplained investments--Burden of proof--Share application money--Assessee explaining source' of money-Identities of applicants and their creditworthiness established--Burden of proof discharged by assessee--Onus shifted to Department--No evidence to show transactions were not genuine--Sections 68 and 69 not applicable- -Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 68, 69: D. 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 proce....