TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance India Ltd. Namah Shivaya Marketing P.Ltd. Axis 098461 24.12.2007 500000 24.12.2007 Shalini Holding Ltd. Namah Shivaya Marketing P.Ltd. Axis 081400 24.12.2007 500000 26.12.2007 Lotus Realcon P. Ltd. Namah Shivaya Marketing P.Ltd. Axis 094139 26.12.2007 500000 26.12.2007 Mega Top Promoters P Ltd. Namah Shivaya Marketing P.Ltd. Axis 094319 26.12.2007 500000 14.01.8 Hum Tum Marketing P.Ltd. Namah Shivaya Marketing P.Ltd. Axis 094526 14.01.2007 1000000 Total: 30,00,000 He noted that the above Companies are floated by Shri Surendra Kumar Jain/Virendra Kumar Jain, who have admitted during the course of search that they are mere entry operators and the various companies floated by them are used for providing accommodation entries only. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 dated 17th March, 2015 was issued after obtaining approval from the Competent Authority. The assessee objected to such notice by filing Objections which were disposed of by the A.O. by passing a speaking order. Subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- u/s.68 on account of share capital, treating the same as an accommodation entry. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 60,000/- u/s 69 as alleged commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by not adjudicating ground of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) without any material on record. PRAYER 6. The appellant craves leave and sanction of the Hon'ble ITAT to file additional evidence, if so required for proper prosecution of the case, based on facts and circumstances, which has not been or could not be educed or filed before lower authorities either because proper and sufficient opportunity was not provided or because it was not solicited or its need was not appreciated. 7. The appellant craves leave to and permission of the Hon'ble ITAT to add to or alter any of the grounds of appeal at any time up to the final decision of the appeal. 8. The order of the A.O. as upheld by the learned CIT-A be declared as nu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d credit-worthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to make the investment in question, to the satisfaction of the AO, so as to discharge the primary onus. ii. The Assessing Officer is duty bound to investigate the credit-worthiness of the creditor/subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers, and ascertain whether the transaction is genuine, or these are bogus entries of name-lenders. iii. If the enquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful, or lack credit-worthiness, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by Section 68 of the Act." 6. He submitted that the assessee in the instant case has filed the requisite details to discharge the primary onus cast on the assessee, however, the AO failed in his duty, to investigate the credit worthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction, therefore, in the light of the above decision since the assessee has discharged the initial onus cast on it, and the AO simply made additions without conducting any fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice of conversion of un-accounted money through the cloak of Share Capital/Premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a I higher onus is required to be placed on the Assessee since the information is within the personal knowledge of the Assessee. The Assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the AO, failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the Assessee." 8. So far as objection of Ld.Counsel for assessee that assessee was not given opportunity to cross examine, he drew attention of the Bench to para 16.5 of the order of AO which reads as under. "The assessee vide letters dated 04.03.2016, 07.03.2016 and 11.03.2016 sought certain information / details / statements. The information relevant to the case have already been provided to the assessee. Further, it may be reiterated that Jain brothers controlled the company through which accommodation entry has been provided to the assessee as discussed in show-cause notice. Moreover, the statement of Jain brothers and intermediary -Sh. Y.K.Gupta ha....