TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n his individual capacity. However, these transactions do not relate to the assessee company. In the present case, the earlier assessment for AY 2007-08 had been completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") wherein the source of share capital was examined by the revenue on the basis of evidence filed by the assessee and no adverse view had been taken. However, in the present proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, consequent to the search, for the reasons recorded in the assessment order, the revenue has treated the share premium received as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. Learned AO further added a sum of Rs. 7467/- being the share of director's remuneration/sitting fee out of the total income earned during the year under consideration by allocating it to the exempt unit. 3. Aggrieved by such an addition, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The objection of the assessee to the action of the revenue is that the burden of proof cast upon the assessee had been fully discharged and that there was no material before the AO to reach the conclusion that he has reached. It was further submitted by the assessee before the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he computation part has to be ignored. 6. In so far as the computation of eligible deduction u/s 80IA is concerned, learned CIT(A) held that each expense cannot be allocated to the unit enjoying concessional taxation; this is not mandated by law nor factually liable; that a director is director for the whole of the company and not only for its unit; that it is not necessary that services of the directors are essential to run the business of the eligible unit; that in multi unit companies a unit is managed by the local manager; and in any case the assessee could not be said to misreport a negligible sum of Rs. 7467/-. He, therefore, deleted this addition also. 7. Challenging the same, revenue is before us in this appeal stating that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 30 crores and RS.6467/- as stated above. 8. It is the argument of the learned DR that in the case of Sohail Financials Ltd. In ITA No.4867/Del/2011, the Tribunal held that there is relationship of Tarun Goyal and his accomplice in making investment at huge premium and having regard to the circumstances and human probabilities, there is no reason to invest these companies in the shares of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plea of the assessee vide Cross Objection No.457/Del/2015 in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and recorded a finding that in the absence of any incriminatory material that was found during the search qua the assessee qua the assessment order does not open for the revenue to reopen the concluded assessments. With the said observations in ITA No.4798/Del/2015, a coordinate bench of this tribunal allowed the Cross Objection of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue preferred against the findings of the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition made on the basis of information received by the learned AO that the assessee received share capital and share premium from the entities whose genuineness and identity and creditworthiness were not found to have been proved to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO. 12. Learned CIT(A) vide para 3.7 observedthat in the case of M/s MSPL, which is another group of company of the assessee, for the Asstt. Year 2006- 07, the first appellate authority referring to the facts involved in these matters, deleted the addition with the following observations: "3.2 Facts are that search and seizure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant company was subscribed by _M/s GeefceeFinance Ltd. (GFC) through its bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank; Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh bearing no.6l732000004160; and not through its account with FIDFC Bank, Ofd. Rajinder Nagar as mentioned in the said statement of Sh. Goyal. It is further seen that there is no cash deposit preceding the cheques issued by GFC to the appellant from its said account with Kotak Mahindra Bank. There are indeed transfer deposits from M/s Tejasvi, M/s Kartik and M/s Venus, possibly other companies owned / controlled by Sh. Goyal. However, the names of these companies from which the money was sourced into the account of GFC, are nowhere mentioned / admitted in the statement of Sh. Goyal as entities providing accommodation entries. No case has been made out that cash had been deposited in the bank accounts of these entities before transferring the funds to the bank account of GFC. The details of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Goyal have also not been relied upon by the revenue in the assessment order. The AO was specifically asked vide letter dated 27.11.2015 to provide the basis / evidence on which he had reached the conclusion that the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et has recovered from 2012, the Indian economy has not been performing well in the period 2012 to 2014. 3.5 No doubt, appellant group received back control of the shares subscribed by the eventual transfer of such shares to its other group companies. No doubt the appellant company stood benefited by the amount of premium received. But having considered the rival claims, I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any evidence to indicate that share capital / premium was raised through dubious means or against collateral undisclosed payments / consideration, and in view of the indication that the appellant may have raised capital genuinely for genuine business needs, no case of addition of the share capital / premium is made out as unexplained credits in the books of the appellant company u/s 68 of the Act. I hold accordingly. 3.6 In the case of M/s SMC Power Generation Ltd., during the assessment u/s 153A for AY 2007-08, the existence of Subscribing company GFC was verified through the inspector of the department who found the said company at the given address. In fact, the existence of the said company is not in doubt and the additions have been made on the basis of ....