TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f accommodation entries as follows: SI No. Amount Cheque No. & Date Concern from which received 1 Rs. 5,00,000/- 46081, 10.01.2006 M/s Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 2 Rs. 5,00,000/- 700738, 24.10.2005 M/s Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 3 Rs. 4,00,000/- 604606, 12.12.2005 M/s Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 4 Rs. 4,00,000/- 604607, 12.12.2005 M/s Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 5 Rs. 5,00,000/- 604619, 05.01.2006 M/s Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 6 Rs. 5,00,000/- 604621, 10.01.2006 M/s Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 7 Rs. 5,00,000/- 604622, 12.01.2006 M/s Chotti Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 4. Taking a leaf out of the aforesaid information, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee to file details of share application money received during the year under consideration and confirmation from the parties who have given share application money. The assessee filed details of share application money received during the year. 5. On perusal of these details, the Assessing Officer observed that the parties who have given share application money, were appearing in the list of entry provider companies given by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved that the assessee has filed the following documents: i) copy of bank statement of the account in which money was received; ii) confirmation; iii) copy of bank statement; iv) acknowledgement of return of income; v) audited balance sheet of the case; vi) annual return of the company. 14. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that both Shri Aseem Gupta and Shri Wasim Mirza have denied having given hawala entries to the appellant. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that this is the first year of the appellant company which has not started any business activities. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that some income was generated by the company which was routed through hawala entry again in the hands of the company. The ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee has discharged its initial onus and deleted the addition. 15. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 16. The ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and read the relevant portion of the assessment order. It is the say of the ld. DR that the documents which were relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) do not find any mention in the assessment order and, therefore, the matter should be sent back to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nion that such large amounts of share application money needed to be probed further and, therefore, required the assessee to furnish particulars, which it did. The assessee provided details relating to the share application money provided by each of the entities, confirmation letters, board resolutions from each company, permanent account number details, copies of the memorandum and articles of association, Forms 18 and 32 and audited financial statements for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006, copies of pay orders which were used for the share application money, affidavits of directors and share investors were also furnished. The Assessing Officer considered the statement given by the directors of the share investing companies and was not satisfied with the materials furnished and held that the assessee had not discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the identity of the applicants, the genuineness of the trans-actions or the creditworthiness of the investors. The Commissioner (Appeals). Held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the identity of the concerned share applicants and the Assessing Officer given by the directors. The Tribunal confirmed this." 21. And ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atement is believed, there is obviously material on which the finding is based; and to seek for other material was tantamount to saying that a statement made by an assessee in not material on which a finding can be given. The Hon'ble High Court further opined that the Tribunal having believed the assessee's statement, there was an end of the matter in so far as that fact was concerned, and if the finding was based upon a statement which was good material on which it could be based, no question of law really arose. 25. As mentioned elsewhere, the ld. DR vehemently stated that since there was no whisper of the documents in the assessment order, the matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. 26. On the peculiar facts of the case in hand, we do not find it fit it restore this issue to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh as it would amount to giving second innings to the AO when sufficient material was available before him on record. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai Damania vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax order dated 28 June, 2000 reported in 251 ITR 541 [Gu....