TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs filed, its return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 on 26.9.2012 admitting an income of Rs. 41,43,330. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO called for various details. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has invested Rs. 13,66,33,500 in M/s. Pitti Laminations Ltd by purchase of 34,90,000 shares @ Rs. 39.15 per share. He observed that the income from such investment in shares is receivable in the form of dividend which is exempt from tax. Therefore, according to him, the expenditure debited to the P&L A/c of Rs. 1,38,300 towards payment of listing fee to SEBI for purchase of "Pitti Laminations Ltd" shares; Rs. 7,72,100 incurred towards "professional consultancy fe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the shareholders. The assessee furnished the list of 12 shareholders in 'A' category and 8 shareholders in 'B' category. The AO addressed letters to the companies to whom the shares were allotted, in order to verify the genuineness of the share allotment, calling for information u/s 133 (6) of the Act. Only 3 parties and furnished confirmation of the investment while there was no response from other 4 parties. The AO therefore, observed that the assessee company has failed to prove the genuineness of the investment and also the creditworthiness of the Investors and accordingly treated the share capital of Rs. 1,85,00,000 as unexplained cash credit and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that her experience has helped the company to increase its business need to be verified by the AO. Further, the submission of the assessee that Ms. Pitti has offered this income in her hands and therefore, bringing the same into tax again in the hands of the company would amount to double taxation of the same amount also needs verification. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to remit this issue to the file of the AO for verification of the assessee's claim in accordance with law. The assessee's appeal is therefore, treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to in Para 8.2 of the CIT (A)'s order. In view of the same, we are not able to accept the contentions of the assessee about the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The PAN of the companies only prove their existence, and nothing else which is required u/s 68 of the Act. The learned DR has relied upon the following decisions to contend that all the three conditions of section 68 have to be fulfilled for deleting the addition: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT-7 vs. Bikram Singh reported in (2017) 399 ITR 407. 2. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd reported in (2012) 342 ITR 169. 3. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the ....