TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 28,80,00,000/- in assessment orders dated 26.03.2014 in both cases; respectively involving proceedings u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Case files perused. None appears at assessee's behest. The Registry has sent separate RPAD notices to both assessees dated 11.05.2018. The same stand returned back unserved with identical remark that " no such entity has been found at this address" . They are accordingly proceeded exparte. 2. Learned Departmental Representative states at the outset that the relevant facts involving in both these cases culminating in similar section 68 addition of the respective share premium seems to be neither genuine nor creditworthy; are identical. We thus take up former case ITA No.1200/Kol/2015 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....source of income only. We find from page-4 of the assessment order that he prepared a detail compilation of the assessee's bank accounts indicting sudden credit and withdrawals within a very short span of time. He therefore sought to know from assessee's directors about the address proof, voter ID and residential proof., Income tax returns, bank statement in his return filed before ROC, any change in management and proof of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the above share applicants. He issued similar notices to the directors of some of the above said sixteen companies. 4. A perusal of the case file reveals that the said notices failed to evoke any response. The Assessing Officer therefore observed that all the above narrate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvested by them. The AO before arriving at any conclusion should' have verified the income tax records of the subscribers to the capital to find out the truth. As stated in instruction 212015 [F. NO. 500115/2014-APA-I] dated 29.01.2015, the receipt of share premium is a capital receipt and don't give rise to any income. Thus the addition of share premium and capital as income u/s 68 is in contrary to said instruction issued by CBDT in light of Vodafone case. Hence the share capital and share premium is not an unexplained cash credit, hence the addition made under section 68 of Rs. 31,69,00,000 be deleted in full. I have gone through the annual accounts and is of opinion that the arguments of the AR about the dispute on disa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by frequent withdrawals in the relevant accounting period(supra). The CIT(A) has failed to consider all these relevant facts whilst accepting the assessee's contentions going by only documentary evidence on record without applying human probabilities test hereinabove We therefore conclude that the CIT(A)'s findings do not deserve to be concurred with par se on merits qua genuineness and creditworthiness aspect. 7. Coming to the CIT(A)'s finding that such kind of a share premium is not taxable as revenue receipt, as per hon'ble apex court's decision in Vodafone case (supra) we are of the view that there is no dispute about the said settled legal position. The question that is involved in this appeal is altogether on a different footing....