TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the aforesaid advances. In response, the A.R of the company vide his letter dated 26.08.2014 filed confirmations of the companies from whom advances of Rs. 2,19,00,000/- have been received by the company. The A.R. of the company vide letter dated 22.09.2014 stated that during the year company has advanced a sum of Rs. 12,22,00,000/- to M/s Nidhi Promoters Pvt. Ltd. towards booking of space in a commercial building being constructed by M/s Nidhi Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi. In turn, the assessee company has accepted advances of Rs. 11,54,00,000/- from various parties for sale of space in commercial building at Dwarka, as booked by the company. Notices u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued to furnish requisite details on 29.09.2014 to the investor companies. Though, there was no response initially, later all these companies filed details on the same day on 24.11.2014. Later, the Assessing Officer issued Summons under section 131 of the Income tax Act, 1961 were issued to the Principal Officers of the investor companies on 05.02.2015 requiring them for personal deposition on 11.02.2015 with req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, submissions were filed on the same date i.e. 24.11.2014. v) In the statement of Sh. Vikas Kadam stated that he is director in 2 companies namely M/s Corporate Network Solution Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Gajanan Realcon Pvt. Ltd. But from ROC data he has been found directors in 6 more companies. vi) In the statement of Sh. Ankur Verma stated that he is director in one company namely M/s Artha Software Pvt. Ltd. But from ROC data he has been found directors in 11 more companies. vii) In the letter filed by Sh. Suraj Bhan stated that he is not connected with the companies in the name of M/s Maggot Impex Pvt. Ltd., M/s Rational Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Artha Software Pvt. Ltd. But from ROC data he has been found directors in 12 companies. viii) The assessee as well as these companies has not filed any copy of written document such as Agreement to Sale / Purchase' for justification of advances received against the booking of space. ix) Simultaneous change of address by these investors as intimated by the A.R. of the company vide letter dated 20.02.2015. x) Not a single investor has been provided space and the advance has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....modation entries as well as reasons for its refund in a very short period of time. The AO has completely ignored the refund of money received by assessee within a short period of time that too before the assessee's case was taken up for scrutiny. There is nothing on record to suggest that any search or survey was conducted on these entities resulting into any finding by the Investigation Wing or department or any statement being recorded in which these entities have accepted indulging into the business of accommodation entries. There is no evidence brought on record by AO by making any investigation or inquiries resulting into any incriminating documents or any statement being recorded in which these entities have accepted indulging in the business of accommodation entries. Narrating thus, the ld. CIT(A) held that additions are to be made on hard facts or on corroborative evidences and not on suspicions, presumptions and surmises. Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judhement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775(SC), Omar Salay Mohd. Salt vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) where in it was held that there m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances to find out the reality and truth and other case laws as mentioned in the assessment order. 12. Rebutting, the ld. AR argued that all the details have been given to the authorities along with copy of the bank statement, ITR, replies have been given to the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act and all the Directors have attended before the Assessing Officer and given their statements which proves the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties. He argued that the total amount advanced by the company for booking space in commercial building being constructed by M/s Nidhi Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in Dwarka, New Delhi was of Rs. 12.22 crores and the company has raised advances of Rs. 11.5 crores, out of which the Assessing Officer suspected only an amount of Rs. 2.19 crores and made addition u/s 68 of the Act without any basis. He also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia Vs ITO 298 ITR 349 (Raj.), CIT Vs Mahesh G. Pomnani in ITA 900 of 2009 (Guj.) and CIT Vs Pancham Dass Jain 156 Taxman 507 (All.). It was also argued that the amounts have been repaid in a short span of six months even before the case has been se....