TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has allowed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 03.11.2008 of CIT (Appeals). 2. The CIT (Appeals) had deleted the addition of Rs. 1.17 Crore made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had filed its return of income on 30.11.2004 declaring 'Nil' income. However, tax was paid under Section 115JB on the book profit of Rs. 24,86,664/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny. During the year, the assessee company received fresh share application money to the tune of Rs. 1,54,40,710/- from 16 entities which were as follows: KSK Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., Kolkata 6,00,000 B.T. Technet Ltd., Delhi 20,00,000 Vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bank statements of the above Companies, A.O. noticed that just before debit entry favouring the assessee company, there was credit entry of the similar amount and in some cases even cash was deposited just before debit entry. Moreover, in some cases, the confirmation was given by the Companies in respect of purchase of shares i.e., they have confirmed that they have purchased the shares with the money so advanced. As against said confirmation, the assessee company has shown only the receipt of share application money pending allotment in the names of those Companies. Moreover, in none of the confirmation letters (All confirmations were on the Letter Head of the respective Companies), the telephone number of the respective Company was menti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the above summons and notices sent, summons sent to Gracious Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Delhi and Changia Steels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi and notices under section 133(6) sent to Savera Commercial Enterprises Ltd., Ludhiana and Spartan Commerce Ltd., Ludhiana were received back un-served from the postal authorities with the remarks 'no such firm exists at the mentioned address". The assessee was, therefore, confronted with the same facts. The assessee was requested to get the compliance of these notices/ summons. On the date fixed, the A.P. received replies from courier from three Investors In respect of notice under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act viz. Reposit Trading Private Ltd., Kolkata, Bothra Suitings Pvt. Ltd' Kolkata and Everlast Fincon Pv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d before making investment in assessee company. In some cases the alleged amount of share application money was paid but no share have been allotted. The assessee did not explain as to why the premium was paid and why the amount has been taken from the Investors was kept pending for allotment of shares. No telephone number have been mentioned, on the Letter Head of the Investors. In the case of Ludhiana Investors, their accounts have been audited by the C.A. of Kolkata. The Ludhiana Investors have maintained Bank account at New Delhi. The assessee did not produce any of the Directors/Principal Officer of Investor Companies before A.O. for verification of the genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The A.O. issued summons under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return of income declaring NIL income. However, the tax was paid under section 115JB on the book profit of Rs. 24,86,664/-. The assessee did not explain when assessee filed NIL returned income, why such Investors would make investment in assessee company that too at Premium without verifying the financials of the assessee, which were mostly from Kolkata and Ludhiana. 6.2. On going through the returned income filed by the Investor Companies, it was found that they have filed their returns of income at meager/low net income which ranges income in hundres to thousands only after claiming deductions. Thus, the assessee as well as the Investors have not justified for entering into such transaction. It also creates doubt in the explanati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it in this submission since the order of the Tribunal clearly sets out its reasons as to why it had disagreed with the findings of the CIT (Appeals). 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant had submitted several documents before the Tribunal which do not find any reference in the impugned order. Even this submission has no merit. It is not that the Tribunal is expected to deal with each & every document that the assessee may produce before it. The Tribunal is required to examine the basis on which the Assessing Officer has made the additions, since those additions have been set aside by the CIT (Appeals) in appeal. 9. We have consciously extracted the findings returned by the Assessing Officer as wel....