TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s." Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on irrelevant considerations and arbitrary grounds. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of judgments which are distinguishable on facts as well as on law. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition of share capital of Rs. 90,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in disregard to the binding judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT which directly lays down ratio on the merits of the addition of share capital under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 2. Brief facts relating to the grounds for both the appeals are that the AO noted that the assessee company was incorporated on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment belying genuineness of the transaction. According to AO, the Balance Sheet of the share subscribing companies showed little or no tangible assets and they were mostly investments in unquoted shares which showed that principles of sound investing had not been followed. Thus, according to AO, these discrepancies raises question mark on long term viability of such companies in terms of returns on investments. According to AO, the income levels of many of these investors are either meager or negative and thus, according to AO, there was hardly any business activity to justify such large amounts of investments and premium. Thus, the AO made observations from (i) to (ix) which is evident from pages 2 and 3 of the assessment order, with those reasons AO was of the opinion that the assessee failed to show the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction and moreover, the assessee's failure to produce its own directors as well as the directors of the share subscribing companies made the AO drew adverse inference against the assessee and after citing few case laws made the entire addition of Rs. 2.40 cr. u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are audited, they have confirmed directly to the AO pursuant to the notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act, and they have disclosed their source of funds etc. which, according to Ld. AR, the AO has not found any fault with, still the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition which, according to Ld. AR, the decision of Ld CIT(A) in respect to the three (3) other share subscribers is erroneous when the assessee has discharged the onus casted upon it to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, the confirmation of Rs. 90 lakhs by Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and need to be deleted. Controverting the submissions of the Ld. AR in respect to the assessee's appeal the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed Rs. 90 lakhs from three share subscribers which action of the Ld. CIT(A) should not be disturbed. 5. Having heard both the parties, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1.5 cr. out of Rs. 2.40 cr. share capital and premium received by the assessee. We note that assessee collected Rs. 2.40 cr. in total which consists of share capital to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs and share ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cribing companies have not been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). The three share subscribing companies are (i) M/s. Fantasy Distributor Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Jaguar Housing Pvt. Ltd. and (iii) M/s. Sanskriti Housing Pvt. Ltd. Let us take the case one by one of these three share subscribers. (i) M/s. Fantasy Distributor Pvt. Ltd. filed the letter of confirmation of subscribing share capital plus premium to the AO directly pursuant to his notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, is found placed at pages 131 to 132 of the paper book which is letter dated 20.11.2014 to the AO. We note that the share application forms submitted by M/s. Fantasy Distributor Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee company is found placed at pages 134 to 137 of the paper book. The income tax return acknowledgment of M/s. Fantasy Distributor Pvt. Ltd. is found placed at page 144 of the paper book wherein we note the PAN of M/s. Fantasy Distributor Pvt. Ltd. is AABCF3443Q and M/s. Fantasy Distributor Pvt. Ltd. is assessed by ITO, Wd- 9(1)-WBG/W/109/01, bank statement of M/s. Fantasy Distributor Pvt. Ltd. wherein it had account with Federal Bank is found at page 145 of the paper book. Its audited accounts are placed from pages 146 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) Coming to the next M/s. Sanskriti Housing Pvt. Ltd.. We note that M/s. Sanskriti Housing Pvt. Ltd. had written letter to the AO pursuant to 133(6) notice which is found placed at pages 221 to 222 of the paper book which is a letter dated 18.11.2014. The share application forms filed by M/s. Sanskriti Housing Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee company is found placed at pages 223 to 226 of the paper book. The income tax return acknowledgment is found placed at page 232 of the paper book wherefrom we note that the PAN of M/s. Sanskriti Housing Pvt. Ltd.. is AANCS7871B. We note that the AO of M/s. Sanskriti Housing Pvt. Ltd. is ITO, Wd. 5(1)/WBG/W/105/01. Bank statement of M/s. Sanskriti Housing Pvt. Ltd. is found placed at page 233 of paper book which is maintained at Federal Bank. The audited accounts are found placed from pages 234 to 238 of paper book and the investment made by M/s. Sanskriti Housing Pvt. Ltd. on the assessee company is to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs which is found placed at page 238 of the paper book which is a part of the audited accounts. The Memorandum & Articles of Association is found placed at paper book pages 239 to 243 of the paper book. From a perusal of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act and the judicial precedents on the issue at hand. 9. Section 68 under which the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer reads as under: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. " The phraseology of section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words 'shall' be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year". The Supreme Court while interpreting similar phraseology used in section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word "may" and not "shall". Thus the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deemi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessee by account payee cheques and in case the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the cash amount deposited by those creditors in their bank accounts, the proper course would have been to make assessments in the cases of those creditors by' treating the cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. 11. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. The Hon'ble Court in the said case held that, once it is found that an assessee has actually taken money from depositor/lender who has been fully identified, the assessee/borrower cannot be called upon to explain, much less prove the affairs of such third party, which he is not even supposed to know or about which he cannot be held to be accredited with any knowledge. In this view, the Hon'ble Court has la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the money received by the assessee, in the form of loan from the creditor, though routed through the sub-creditors, actually belongs to, or was of, the assessee himself. In other words, while section 68 gives the liberty to the Assessing Officer to enquire into the source/source from where the creditor has received the money, section 106 makes the assessee liable to disclose only the source(s) from where he has himself received the credit and IT is not the burden of the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the source(s) of the sub-creditors. If section 106 and section 68 are to stand together, which they must, then, the interpretation of section 68 are to stand together, which they must, then the interpretation of section 68 has to be in such a way that it does not make section 106 redundant. Hence, the harmonious construction of section 106 of the Evidence Act and section 68 of the Income- tax Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of his creditor, the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in confined only to the transactions, which he had' with the creditor and he may not know what transaction(s) had taken place between his creditor and the sub-creditor... " ********** "In other words, though under section 68 an Assessing Officer is free to show, with the help of the inquiry conducted by him into the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and the sub-creditor, that the transaction between the two were not genuine and that the sub-creditor had no creditworthiness, it will not necessarily mean that the loan advanced by the sub-creditor to the creditor was income of the assessee from undisclosed source unless there is evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that the amount which has been advanced by the sub-creditor to the creditor, had actually been received by the sub-creditor from the assessee ...." ********** "Keeping in view the above position of law, when we turn to the factual matrix of the present case, we find that so far as the appellant is concerned, he has established the identity of the creditors, namely, Nemichand Nahata and Sons (HUF) and Pawan Kumar Agarwalla. The appellant had also shown, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od discharged and so, no addition to his total income on account of cash credit was called for. In view of this finding, we find that the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the AA C, setting aside the assessment order." 13. We also take note of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata 347 ITR 347 wherein the Court held as follows: "15. It is now a settled law that while considering the question whether the alleged loan taken by the assessee was a genuine transaction, the initial onus is always upon the assessee and if no explanation is given or the explanation given by the appellant is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer can disbelieve the alleged transaction of loan. But the law is equally settled that if the initial burden is discharged by the assessee by producing sufficient materials in support of the loan transaction, the onus shifts upon the Assessing Officer and after verification, he can call for further explanation from the assessee and in the process, the onus may again shift from the Assessing Officer to assessee. 16. In the case before us, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has merely noticed that since the summons issued before assessment returned unserved and no one came forward to prove. Therefore, it shall be assumed that the assessee failed to prove the existence of the creditors or for that matter the creditworthiness. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has taken the trouble of examining of all other materials and documents, viz., confirmatory statements, invoices, challans and vouchers showing supply of bidis as against the advance. Therefore, the attendance of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s allowed. 15. When a question as to the creditworthiness of a creditor is to be adjudicated and if the creditor is an Income Tax assessee, it is now well settled by the decision of the Calcutta High Court that the creditworthiness of the creditor cannot be disputed by the AO of the assessee but the AO of the creditor. In this regards our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKA TA-Ill Versus DATAWARE PRIVATE LIMITED ITAT No. 263 of 2011 Date: 21st September, 2011 wherein the Court held as follows: "In our opinion, in such circumstances, the Assessing officer of the assessee cannot take the burden of assessing the profit and loss account of the creditor when admittedly the creditor himself is an income tax assessee. After getting the PAN number and getting the information that the creditor is assessed under the Act, the Assessing officer should enquire from the Assessing Officer of the creditor as to the genuineness" of the transaction and whether such transaction has been accepted by the Assessing officer of the creditor but instead of adopting such course, the Assessing officer himself could n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer on his part called for the details from the assessee and also from the share applicants and analyzed the facts and ultimately observed certain abnormal features, which were mentioned in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded that nature and source of such money was questionable and evidence produced was unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs. 24,00,000/-. On appeal the Learned CIT (A) by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 allowed the appeal by holding -that share capital/premium of Rs. 24,00,000/- received from the investors was not liable to be treated under Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [supra], we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessee Company was not genuine, on the basis of some extraneous reasons. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took note of the observation of the Assessing Officer that enquiry conducted by the Income Tax Inspector had revealed that nine persons making applications for 900 shares were not available at the given address and rightly concluded that the total share capital issued by the Assessee Company could not be added as unexplained cash credit under 'Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, if the nature and source of investment by any shareholder, in shares of the Assessee Company remained unexplained, liability could not be foisted on the company. The concerned shareholders would have to explain the source of their fund. The learned Commissioner on considering the submissions of the, respective parties and considering the materials, found that the Assessing Officer had applied the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act arbitrarily and illegally and in any case without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of representation and/or hearing. Learned Tribunal agreed with the factual findings of the learned Commissioner and accordingly the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws: "The only question raised in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,52,000/-, Rs. 91,50,000/- and Rs. 13,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital, share application money and investment in HTCCL respectively. After hearing Md. Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we find that all such application money were received by the assessee by way of account payee cheques and the assessee also disclosed the complete list of shareholders with their complete addresses and GIR Numbers for the relevant assessment years in which share application was contributed. It further appears that all the payments were made by the applicants by account payee cheques. It appears from the Assessing Officers order that his grievance was that the assessee was not willing to produce the parties who had allegedly advanced the fund. In our opinion, both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below were justified in holding that after disclosure of the full par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in Assessee company 79 99 125 170 191 8. Memorandum & Articles of Association 80-85 100-105 126-130 171-175 193-197 Sl. No. Particulars of documents of the share applicants Fantasy Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Jaguar Housing Pvt. Ltd. . Sanskriti Housing Pvt. Ltd. Page Nos. Page Nos. Page Nos. 1. Letter furnished u/s. 133(6) 131-132 198-199 221-222 2. Share Applicant Forms 133-137 200-201 223-226 3. Certificate explaining source of funds 138-142 202-205 227-230 4. Income Tax Return acknowledgment 144 207 232 5. Bank Statements 145 206 233 6. Audited Accounts 146-149 209-215 234-238 7. Details of investment as appearing in audited accounts showing investment in Assessee company 150 - 238 8. Memorandum & Articles of Association 151-155 216-220 239-243 21. From the aforesaid chart we note that the assessee has discharged its onus casted upon it to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Since we have already discussed about the creditworthiness o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us of Rs. 2,86,96,419 /- totaling to Rs. 3,19,83,419/- and whereas it has invested share capital of only Rs. 10 lacs and share premium of Rs. 20 lacs totaling Rs. 30 lacs. So M/s. Prospect Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. has sufficient own funds so it has got creditworthiness. 22. From the details as aforesaid which emerges from the paper book filed before us as well as before the lower authorities, it is vivid that all the share applicants are (i) income tax assessee's, (ii) they are filing their return of income, (iii) the share application form and allotment letter is available on record, (iv) the share application money was made by account payee cheques, (v) the details of the bank accounts belonging to the share applicants and their bank statements, (vi) in none of the transactions the AO found deposit in cash before issuing cheques to the assessee company, (vii) the applicants are having substantial creditworthiness which is represented by a capital and reserve as noted above. 23. As noted from the judicial precedents cited above, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee then there is a duty casted upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of credit found i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation in similar circumstances. The relevant portion of the decisions are as follows: (a) The Ld ITAT Kolkata. in DC IT Vs Global Mercantiles Pvt.Ltd in ITA No. 1669/Kol/2009 dated 13-01-2016. In this the decision the Ld. Tribunal held as follows: "3.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the detailed paper book filed by the assessee. The facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. We find that the assessee had given the complete details about the share applicants clearly establishing their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction proved beyond doubt and had duly discharged its onus in full. Nothing prevented the Learned AO to make enquiries from the assessing officers of the concerned share applicants for which every details were very much made available to him by the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned Ld. CIT(1) on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ud reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) is very well founded, wherein, it has been very clearly held that the only obligatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 20 individuals are reflected in page 6 & 7 of the Learned CIT(A) order. The Learned AO asked the assessee to produce the shareholders before him. He found that the assessee did not do so but furnished copies of pay orders used for payments to the assessee company and also furnished income tax particulars and balance sheets of all the shareholders. The Learned AO on analyzing all the balance sheets observed that the shareholders have paltry income and small savings and none of them have any bank account and huge cash balances were shown in their hands out of which Pay orders were obtained. Based on this, the Learned AO concluded that these shareholders do not have creditworthiness to invest in the assessee company and brought the entire sum of Rs. 57,00,000/- to tax as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4.2. On first appeal, the Learned CIT(A) observed that entire share application monies of Rs. 57,00,000/- we received during the previous year 2004-05 relevant to Asst Year 2005-06 from 20 persons and the shares were allotted to them during the asst year under appeal. He observed that the assessee had furnished details of the share applicants giving the date wise r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly no monies were received during the asst year under appeal and hence there is no scope for invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Hence we hold that the order passed by the Learned CITA in this regard does not require any interference. Accordingly the ground no. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. (b) The ITAT Kolkata in R.B Horticulture & Animal Projects Co. Ltd, ITA No. 632/Koll2011 dated 13-01-2016. In this the decision the Ld. Tribunal held as follows: "6. We have heard the Learned DR and when the case was called on for hearing , none was present on behalf of the assessee. However, we find from the file that the assessee had filed a detailed paper book and written submissions. Hence the case is disposed off based on the arguments of the Learned DR and written submissions and paper book already available on record. The facts stated in the Learned CIT(A) were not controverted by the Learned DR before us. We find that the assessee had given the complete details about the share applicants clearly establishing their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction proved beyond doubt and had duly discharged its onus in full. Nothing prevente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the others was either not available or was inadequate and added an amount of Rs. 46 lakhs pertaining to 30 persons to the income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and deleted the additions. On further appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the additional burden was on the department to show that even if the share applicants did not have the means to make the investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. No substantial question of law arose. " 6.3. We find that the argument of the Learned DR to set aside this issue to the file of the Learned AO for verification of share subscribers would not serve any purpose as the ratio decided in the above cases is that in any case, no addition could be made in the hands of the recipient assessee. In view of the aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the apex court (supra), Jurisdictional High Court (supra) and Delhi High Court (supra) , we find n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received at the old address instead of present address, it cannot be said that the identity of the applicant has not been verified. All of these companies had duly replied to notice u/s. 133(6) and confirmed the transaction with all the evidences. The AO has not raised any objection on any of the information furnished before him. The AO has not asked the respective Company applicants also to explain the alleged discrepancy in the address. The AO has not brought any material on account of record to disbelief the evidences furnished with him and treat the transaction as not genuine. The assessee submitted the following material at the time of assessment. a) Copy of share applications from the share applicants (copies enclosed) b) Copy of Form 2 filed with Registrar of Companies, West Bengal (copy enclosed) c) Copy of Form 18 about the Registered Office of the applicants for change of address subsequent to the date of allotment, i.e. 31.03.2009 (copies enclosed) d) Members register e) Share application & Allotment Register f) Copy of board resolution. g) Replies from Share applicants to the notice u/s. 133(6) issued to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsactions. It is observed that all the three share applicant companies i.e. M/s. Shree Shyam Trexim Pvt. Ltd., M/s Navalco Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jewellock Trexim Pvt. Ltd. had filed their confirmations wherein each of them confirmed that they had applied for shares of the appellant -company. All the three companies provided- the cheque number, copy of bank statements and their PAN. It is observed that these companies also filed, copies of their return of income and financial statements for as well as copy of their assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I. T Act for AY 2005-06. In the case of M/s. Jewellock Trexim Pvt. Ltd. the assessment for AY 2005-06 was completed by the ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata and the assessments in the case of M/s. Navalco Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shree Shyam Trexim Pvt. Ltd. for A. Y.2005-06 and AY.2004-05 respectively were completed by the I TO, Ward 9(4), Kolkata. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in holding that the share applicant companies were not in existence. The assessment orders were completed on the address as provided by the appellant company in the course of assessment proceedings. It is not know....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as well as ITA T Kolkata Bench on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee also supports the view that for non production of directors of the investor company for examination by the AO it cannot be held that the identity of a limited company has not been established. For the reasons given above we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. " 25. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd (ITA No. 597 of 2012) dated 21.01.2012. In this case the assessee had received share application money of Rs. 55.50 lacs during the year in question. The assessee filed the complete names, addresses of the share applicants, confirmatory letters from them, copies of bank statements of both the company as well as the share applicants and copies of share application forms. In spite of the aforesaid documentary evidences the AO held the explanation to be unacceptable and treated the share application as unexplained cash credit thereby making addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On appeal the CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 5). Accordingly the addition made under Section 68 on account of share application was deleted. 26. We would like to reproduce the Hon'ble High Court order in CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal P.Ltd. in ITA no. 597/2012 judgement dated 21.1.2013, the Hon'ble High Court after considering the decisions in the case of Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 169 and judgement in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports 319 ITR (Sat 5)(5. C) held as follows:- "As can be seen from the above extract, two types of cases have been indicated. One in which the Assessing Officer carries out the exercise which is required in law and the other in which the Assessing Officer 'sits back with folded hands' till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions. The present case falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. This would be apparent from the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order to the following effect:- ''Investigation made by the Investigation Wing of the department clearly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 342 ITR 169 (supra) in ITA 232/2012 judgement dt. 22.11.2012 at para 6 to 8/ it was held as follows. "6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the ROC in relation to the share application affidavits of the directors, form 2 filed with the ROC by such applicants confirmations by the applicant for company's shares, certificates by auditors etc. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer chose to base himself merely on the general inference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report and the statement of Mr. Mahes Garg. To elevate the inference which can be drawn on the basis of reading of such material into judicial conclusions would be improper, more so when the assessee produced material. The least that the Assessing Officer ought to have done was to enquire into the matter by, if necessary, invoking his powers under Section 131 summoning the share applicants or directors. No effort was made in that regard. In the absence of any such finding that the material disclosed was untrustwo....