TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) 21, Mumbai, [CIT(A)], Appeal No. CIT(A)-21/ITO-13(3)(2)/I.T-114/2014 15 dated 02/03/2016 on following effective grounds of appeal: - 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Hon. CIT (Appeal)-21 has erred in confirming the Ld. AO's action of invoking provisions of S.68 of the Act for treating the "Share Application Money" received by the appellants from their investors as "Unexplained Cash Credit", without considering the evidence produced in support of genuineness of the respective investors. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Hon. CIT (Appeal)-21 has erred in confirming the disallowance of Bad Debts of Rs. 84,615/-. 3. On the facts and in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly a loss-making company. The assessee justified that the share premium was calculated by taking into consideration the general reserve, goodwill of the company in the market and projects in hand. However, notice issued u/s 133(6) to the aforesaid share applicant as well as physical inspection by the inspector at the given address revealed that the share applicant was not existing at the given address and the said fact which was confronted to the assessee. The assessee, vide replies dated 19/03/2014 & 24/03/2014 justified the share premium by submitting the details of projects being undertaken by the assessee and in support of impugned transaction, produced documentary evidences in the shape of Confirmation of accounts by Share Applicant, c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... P. Ltd. [319 ITR 5]. A submission was made that prior to amendment in Section 68 vide Finance Act, 2012 there was no onus to prove the source of the source. However, not convinced with material on record and placing reliance on certain judicial pronouncements, the stand of Ld. AO got confirmed. The other two additions as agitated before us was also confirmed for want of requisite details. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4.1 We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including documentary evidences placed in the paper book, judicial pronouncements cited before us. Upon due consideration, we find that so far as the identity of the investor is concerned, the same has undoubt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the pre-proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it was found satisfied. Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f genuineness of the impugned transaction, the assessee has placed on record the copy of board resolution and confirmation of the said investment by the assessee. So far as the justification of Share Premium is concerned, we find that the assessee was engaged in construction activities and was carrying out many projects during impugned AY, the details of which were placed on record and which were also not disputed by the revenue. For AY 2012-13, the assessee has filed returned income of Rs. 147.60 Lacs which is evident from material on record. The details of the ongoing projects have been placed on record. Under these circumstances, the revenue, in our opinion, by questioning the wisdom / prudence of the investor could not proceed to make ....