TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act, 1961 (for short 'IT Act' seeking quashing of order dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure A-3) passed by Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short 'Tribunal') whereby appeal of the present appellant had been dismissed. 2. That the Respondent-Assessee is a colonizer. The Assessing Authority vide order dated 29.12.2011 framed assessment under Section 143(3) of IT Act for the assessment year 2009-10 whereby income was assessed Rs. 3,95,00,000/-. The Assessing Authority made additions on three counts namely: i) Rs. 1.65 Crores on account of failure of Assessee to prove identity and genuineness of the persons having introduced share capital and share premium. ii) Rs. 1.10 Crores on account of failure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under the Companies Act and all these Companies are having PAN numbers and have filed their income tax returns. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the identity of these Companies. 13. As regards the creditworthiness of these companies, we find that these three companies had filed audited accounts and investment in the assessee company has been made duly reflected in their respective balance sheets. We find that the investments in the assessee-company has been out of share capital and reserves of the investing Companies. For example, the net worth of M/s. Dhir Management Consultants (P) Ltd., (one of the investing companies) as on 31.03.2009 as per balance sheet placed at paper book page 8 (in short 'PB-8') is Rs. 99,34,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... companies had sufficient balance in their bank account to make investments in the assessee company. For example, in the case of M/s SKM Securities Pvt. Limited, the company had balance of Rs. 35,28,860/- in its bank account with Indusind Bank as on 27.6.2008 out of which Rs. 15,00,000/- was invested in the assessee company on 28.6.2008 and further the investing company had balance of Rs. 50,28,835/- as on 10th July, 2008 out of which Rs. 50,00.000/- has been invested in the assessee-company on 12th July, 2008. The analysis of bank account statement reveals that the deposit in the bank account before investments in the assessee company were all through Banking transactions. Therefore, the genuineness of transaction cannot be doubted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 months and invited our attention to the agreement with M/s Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd. 21. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the agreement with M/s Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd. was an exhaustive agreement containing 33 clauses and one of the conditions as per clause-14 says that if the delay is because of the force-majeure conditions, no compensation is payable. He submitted that the PUDA had not given possession for development of the property even till 11.9.2006 and therefore, the delay in the execution of the project work was beyond the control of the developer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that from the balance sheet of the developer obtained by the AO by calling the inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24. As regards Ground no. 1(iii), the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of loan from M/s Golden Laminates Ltd. The ld. DR heavily relied upon the assessment order, whereas the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A). 25. In this respect, we find that the assessee had received a total loan of Rs. 255 lakhs from M/s Golden Laminates Ltd., and the assessee had filed a confirmation from the M/s Golden Laminates Ltd., regarding advancing a loan of Rs. 255 lakhs by them and the confirmation the date, cheque no. and other relevant information alongwith company's PAN was also filed. The AO had accepted the loan of Rs. 1.05 Crore as genuine and he has rejected the loan of Rs. 1.20 Crore on the pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditional information was supplied to Assessing Authority by CIT (A) and Assessing Authority in its remand report did not dispute the additional information rather asked to consider at the time of disposal of the case, thus it is unfair on the part of department to raise a plea that Assessing Authority was not granted proper opportunity to comment upon additional information. 7. Having scrutinized record and heard arguments of both sides, we find that present appeal is bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed. There are concurrent findings of First Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal. We are not oblivious of the fact that Tribunal is final fact finding authority and scope of interference of this Court lies in narrow compass. The ....