TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ examination before the Assessing Of to prove their creditworthiness and genuineness of/he transactions as required u/s. 68 of the Act." ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,25,85,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the loan creditor was assessed to tax in the same charge, hence its identity could not he doubted, but ignoring that the capacity of creditor and genuineness of transactions had not been proved ", since party was found to indulging in paper transactions, and therefore the assessee hadfailed to discharge the onus cast upon him." The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and /or add new grounds which may be necessary. Assessee's Appeal ITA No. 1472 i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 5,60,42485/ received by the appellant towards Unsecured Loans as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; M/s. Rubicon Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The directors of these company were also director in four other companies. The A.O. issue summons u/s. 131 to Shri. Suraj Prakash Jindal director of these five companies. He recorded his statement. For most of the transactions his reply was "I cannot recollect and remember the nature of other details of transactions." The A.O. reproduced the statement so obtain in the assessment order. On the basis of these statement the A.O. observed that the said person was not aware of the transactions its source, its genuineness and identity of theperson involved. That Shri. Jindal could not establish the credit worthiness of the company. 7. Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has received unsecured loans as under: S.No. Name of the Party Amounts (Rs.) 1. M/s. Three A Brothers 2,30,00,000/- 2. Accurate Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 90,85,000/- 3. M/s. Haranba Finvest Ser. Pvt. Ltd. 25,00,000/- 4. M/s. Niketan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000/- 5. M/s. Nisha Enterprises 2,38,40,000/- 6. Mr. Nitin Soni ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh Jindal was not aware of anything about the company and for every question he stated that "I don't know & I don't remember 9. Upon assessee appeal Ld. CIT-A referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Lovely Exports. He noted that assessee company has received share application money. The name, Pan, balance-sheet, bank statement and conformation letter were submitted to the A.O. Ld. CIT-A concluded as under: "In the case of share application herein, all shareholders whose contributions have been assessed by the AO as appellant's income under the provision of the section 68 are duly incorporated companies. In the case of incorporated company, the existence of the party cannot be denied. Once incorporated, a company exists until liquidated in accordance with law. If it is the case of the AO that these art' bogus shareholders then the department is free to proceed to reopen their assessments in accordance with law. But in case of appellant, once existence of the shareholders is not in doubt, no further action lies and the amount of share capital cannot be assessed as appellant company's income chargeable to tax. In view of this legal po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to double additions. The contention of the appellant is found correct and hence the addition on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,38,40,000/- in the account of the said Nisha Enterprises is restricted to Rs. 2.12,90,000/-. Thus, the additions in respect of which the additions are confirmed are as under: S. No. Name of Lender Amount Received 1. Nisha Enterprises 2,12,90,000/- 2. Shree Siddhi Steel 28,75,000/- 3. Three A Brothers 2,30,00,000/- 4. India Infoline Pvt. Ltd. 49,77,485/- 5. Shree Radhe Software Soltuions Pvt. Ltd. 2,50,000/- 6. Nitin Soni 36,50,000/- Total 5,60,42,485/- 11. Against the above orders revenue and assessee are in cross appeal before us. We have heard the Ld. DR. Non-appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is also noted that these appeals are pending since 2011. Several notices have been given to the assessee and none is appearing on behalf of the assessee. Hence we proceed to adjudicate the issue on the basis perusal of records and hearing Ld. DR. 12. As regards the issue of share application money we note that assessee has received share application money from two....