AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 9,45,25,367/- on account of sundry creditors being the investor fund collected through Sugam Scheme without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence. 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.ll,20,17,167/- on account of fixed assets without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence. 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.l,00,000/- on account of vehicle running and maintenance expenses without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence. 6. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the 1/5th addition of RS.44,888/- out of car depreciation of Rs. 2,24,440/- due to personal use by directors without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence. 7. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the original assessment in this cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings for the year under consideration cannot be withdrawn as requested by Sh. Narinder Jit Singh ex Director of the company in his above referred letter dated 2.2.2002. AO noted that since the assessee company has failed to attend the assessment proceedings with details / information to be filed in support of its contention, no information / detail was collected from the Crime Branch as in the absence of assessee company's details, it is difficult to correlate information available with the Crime Branch and pass the assessment order as per accounting principles and make additions only after proper verification. Hence, AO has no alternative except to complete the assessment for the year under consideration on the same figure as completed on 27.3.2000 at Rs. 55,73,77,005/-. Therefore, assessment was made at Rs. 55,73,77,005/- wherein various additions have been made vide order dated 22/3/2002 passed u/s. 264/143(3) of the Act. Against the assessment order dated 22.3.2002, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 17.3.2015 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be regarded as bogus and, thus, amount received from said transactions was to be added to assesee's taxable income under section 68 It was held as follows: "53. In contrast to the above judgments, in the present case, the Assessee is a private limited company and in the factual matrix, we have held that the Assessee has not been able to discharge the initial onus and has not been able to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction. Though, in our considered opinion, none of the above judgments, referred to by the Assessee respondent, are applicable in the facts of the present case and in view of the findings recorded by us hereinabove. 54. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Assessee has not discharged the onus satisfactorily and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified and sustainable." 5. CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt Ltd [2014] 3671TR 306 (Del) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court accepted that since the assessee was unable to produce the directors and the principal officers of the six shareholder companies and also that as per the inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... established the identity of the parties. It has further been observed that the report of the investigation wing cannot conclusively prove that the assessee's own monies were brought back in the form of share application money. As noted in the earlier paragraph, it is not the burden of the A 0 to prove that connection. There has been no examination by the Tribunal of the assessment proceedings in any detail in order to demonstrate that the assessee has discharged its onus to prove not only the identity of the share applicants, but also their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. No attempt was made by. the Tribunal to scratch the surface and probe the documentary evidence in some depth, in the light of the conduct of the assessee and other surrounding circumstances in order to see whether the assessee has discharged its onus under Section 68. With respect, it appears to us that there has only been a mechanical reference to the case-law on the subject without any serious appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. We, therefore, answer the substantial question of law framed by us in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ruling in Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. 's case (supra). The material and the records in this case show that notice issued to the 5 of the share applicants were returned unserved. The particulars of returns made available by the assessee and taken into consideration in paragraph 3.4 by the AO in this case would show that the said parties/applicants had disclosed very meager income. The AO also noticed that before issuing cheques to the assessee; huge amounts were transferred in the accounts of said share applicants. This discussion itself would reveal that even though the share applicants could not be accessed through notices, the assessee was in a position to obtain documents from them. While there can be no doubt that in Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra), the Court indicated the rule of "shifting onus" i.e. the responsibility of the Revenue to prove that Section 68 could be invoked once the basic burden stood discharged by furnishing relevant and material particulars, at the same time, that judgment cannot be said to limit the inferences that can be logically and legitimately drawn by the Revenue in the natural course of assessment proceedings. The information that assessee furnish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that even if a transaction of loan is made through cheque, it cannot be presumed to be genuine in the absence of any agreement, security and interest payment. Mere submission of PAN Card of creditor does not establish the authenticity of a huge loan transaction particularly when the ITR does not inspire such confidence. Mere submission of 10 proof and the fact that the loan transactions were through the banking channel, does not establish the genuineness of transactions. Loan entries are generally masked to pump in black money into banking channels and such practices continue to plague Indian economy." 4. In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor its authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....surviving director of the company was in jail. In view of this the assessing officer was left with no alternative but to pass an ex-parte penalty order imposing the penalty of Rs. 23,84,OO,510/- as otherwise the penalty action would have got barred by limitation of time. The penalty order dated 28.09.2010 suffers from the same flaw as those pointed out for assessment order u/s 143(3) for this year. The penalty order was also not served as the same is returned back with the remarks by the postal authorities that the 'assessee left without address. " Objective examination of the above facts clearly brings out that both the orders u/s 143(3) passed on 27.03.2000 and the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed on 28.09.2000 are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue being wrong on facts which is established by the number of law suits filed by the investors claiming their money is back and hence the money brought in the books of the company as share capital and loans was not necessarily and entirely assessee's own income from undisclosed sources which could be taxed u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961. In any case the addition in respect of both....