TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. The assessee filed the return of income electronically on 30th September, 2012 declaring loss of Rs. 83,670/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and during the scrutiny assessment the AO noted that the assessee has issued shares at a premium of Rs. 390/- per share of Rs. 10/- each to three parties as under :- S.No. Name & address of the shareholder No. of share Rate of share allotted at premium Total amount 01. M/s. Diamention Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd., 85,Netaji Subhas Road, Dal house, Kolkata- 700001. 6250 390/- 24,37,500/- 02. M/s. Giltedge Vincom Pvt. Ltd., 85, Netaji Subhas Road, Dal house, Kolkata-700001. 3750 390/- 14,62,500/- 03. M/s. NR Vincom Pvt. Ltd., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. However, the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of the share application money received from M/s. NR Vincom Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the notice issued under section 133(6) by the AO was received back unserved with the remarks that the party was not available at the address. Hence both the assessee as well as the revenue are aggrieved by the impugned order of ld. CIT (A) and filed these cross appeals. The grounds raised in the cross appeals are as under :- ITA No. 91/JP/2017 (REVENUE) : (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 39,00,000/- without the assessee proving the creditworthiness of share subscribers and genuinen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act in respect of two share applicants and hence the tax effect in the revenue's appeal is not exceeding Rs. 20,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. 3. The ld. D/R has fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in the Revenue's appeal is less than 20 lacs which is prescribed threshold limit in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued in supersession of its earlier Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the demand/ tax effect in the Revenue's appeal in question is below Rs. 20.00 lacs. Under the powers vested by section. 268A(1) of the I T Act, CBDT has recently issued Circular No. 3/2018 da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has further submitted that the only ground of sustaining the addition by the ld. CIT (A) is that the notice issued by the AO under section 133(6) was returned back unserved as the party was not available at the address whereas the said notice was issued by the AO at the incorrect address. The ld. A/R has submitted that the AO issued the notice under section 133(6) to M/s. N.R. Vincom Pvt. Ltd., O-8, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 1st Floor, Chandani Chowk, Kolkata-700013 whereas the correct address of the said party is : O-8, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 1st Floor, Saha Court, Kolkata-700013. The ld. A/R has also referred to the assessee's letter dated 12.03.2015 at page 66 of the Paper Book and submitted that the assessee had duly brought this fact to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CTR 402 (Delhi HC) CIT vs. Devine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 207 CTR 38 (Delhi HC) CIT vs. A.K.J. Granites Pvt. Ltd. 301 ITR 298 (Raj. HC) 8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has recorded in the assessment order that the notice was issued to the said party being share applicant at the address provided by the assessee and, therefore, if the assessee subsequently comes out with a plea that the said notice was issued at incorrect address then there was no time left with the AO at that point of time and, therefore, the assessee himself is at fault in not furnishing the correct particulars. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the notice u/s 133(6) sent to the said entity was returned back unserved and the said party was not found to be operating from the address given by the assessee. As a result, the primary onus was not discharged by the assessee since the AO could not verify the veracity of documents submitted in respect of the said entity in the absence of the correct address. The AO brought these facts to the notice of the assessee asking it to show cause as to why addition u/s 68 should not be made and also requested the assessee to produce the directors of the said company. In response, the assessee could still not give the correct address of the said entity. As a result, the assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus on it to prove the identity, ....