2019 (1) TMI 529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/'- u/s. 68 of the Act, on account of Unexplained Share Premium." 2."On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- being the amount received on account of Share Application Money/ Share Capital and Share Premium from M/s. Hanurang Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Select Infilease Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, without appreciating the fact the genuineness of the Share Premium amount and creditworthiness of the companies has not be established by the assessee company" 3."On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-, without appreciating the fact that the compani....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led that it had no substantial business operations during impugned AY or in preceding/succeeding years. Notices sent u/s 133(6) to both these entities to confirm the transactions were returned back by the Postal authority. The aforesaid facts were confronted to the assessee and the assessee was show-caused as to why the said sum was not to be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the act. Although the assessee defended its stand and justified the premium on shares, however, not convinced, Ld. AO relying upon certain judicial pronouncements, treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and added the same to the income of the assessee. In the original assessment order dated 28/03/2015, Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 490 Lacs, being ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e during impugned AY as well as in preceding / succeeding years. Per Contra, Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee [AR], Shri B.V.Jhaveri, drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paper-book and by way of written submissions, submitted that the assessee had discharged the initial onus casted upon him to establish the genuineness of the transactions and therefore, the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite justified. Elaborate written submissions / propositions / judicial pronouncements have been placed before us to fortify the assessee's defense. 5.1 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including documents placed in the paperbook & judicial pronouncements as cited before us. Upo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es dated 01/07/2014, 18/12/2014, 27/10/2015 & 20/03/2015, filed certain documentary evidences in support of the transactions and it appears that the same has not been appreciated in the proper perspective by Ld. AO. There is no discussion, whatsoever, regarding these submissions and evidences in the quantum assessment order. The Ld. AR has also submitted that notices u/s 133(6) were returned undelivered since the same were sent at the wrong address. It has further been submitted that both the entities, upon being informed by the assessee about notices u/s 133(6), confirmed the transactions with supporting documentary evidences. The attention has also been drawn to the fact that valuation of shares was justified by following discounted cash ....