TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing (P) Ltd. vs ITO:- Date of Order Order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) Section in which order has been passed Assessment year 1712.2018 7 143(3)/147 2010-11 And in ITO vs. RMP Holding (P) Ltd.:- Date of Order Order passed by Ld. CIT0(Appeals) Section in which order has been passed Assessment year 29.08.2018 36 143(3)/147 2007-08 2. Since issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, same were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. In all the years the common issue involved relates to addition made u/s 68 on account of share application money and validity of reopening u/s 147 on various grounds. The quantum of addition and penalty levied for all the assessment years are tabulated here as under:- ITA No. Asstt. year Addition u/s 68 Order passed 6017/Del/2018 2007-08 Rs. 1,66,65,000/- u/s 143(3)/147 79/Del/2019 2010-11 Rs. 5,10,00,000/- u/s 143(3)/147 3299/Del/2017 2006-07 Rs. 55,00,000/- u/s 143(3)/147 584/Del/2018 2006-07 Penalty of Rs. 55,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) 6016/Del/2018 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se persons act only as their stooges. The cash received from the recipient parties for providing the accommodation entries was first deposited in the accounts of these dummy firms/companies in the disguise of the cash received against the bogus sales, duly shown in the books of accounts. From there, this cash was transferred to the different paper companies floated by Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain through a complex trail of transactions, so as to hide the actual sources of funds of the last set of recipient companies of Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain. In this way, the reserve & surpluses and the capital account of a specific set of companies are enhanced with the help of the unexplained cash received by Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain, which is routed to these companies through their dummy firm/companies. Once the funds of these companies have been enhanced sufficiently, accommodation entries throughRTGS/Cheque in the shape of the share capital, capital gains or loans as per the specific requirement of the recipient clients were provided them in lieu of the cash received from them. In this way, the chain for pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 23.4.2013 stated that the return filed u/s 139 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148. Thereafter, assessee had sought for the 'reasons recorded' and raised objections challenging the validity of reopening on various counts which have been disposed off by the Ld. AO vide letter dated 13.10.2014. 5. The AO has taken note of the fact that Assessee Company was incorporated on 21.12.2005, and this was the first assessment year. The Assessee Company was engaged in the business of trading of shares and was also earning interest income. AO further noted that as per the seized annexure found during the course of search and seizure action in the case of Shri Surender Kumar Jain and Shri Virender Kumar Jain on 14.9.2010, the seized annexure reflected following accommodation entries taken by the assessee from various companies: - Bank Book Date From To (Beneficiary) Bank Cheque/ RTGS Cheque Date Amount Through Annexure No. Page Nos. 15-02-06 Pelicon Finance & Lease Ltd. R N Khemka Enterprises P Ltd. KOTAK CH. No. 000248 16-02-06 10.00.000 Satish A-52 26 i 18-02-66 Vogue Leasing & Finance P Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see before the AO has also challenged that, since this is the first year of the assessee company, therefore, there cannot be any unaccounted income earned by the assessee and hence no addition could have been made on account of alleged unaccounted money and in support various judicial pronouncements were also filed. However, Ld. AO rejected the assessee's contention and stated that company was incorporated in August 2005 and had 6-7 months to earn the unaccounted money and assessee has claimed to have received share premium @ 40 per share allotted to these concerns. He inferred that all these share application moneys are a bogus accommodation entry and asked the assessee to produce the Directors of the companies for examination. But assessee has failed to produce these persons. 7. One very important fact as culled out from the assessment order and also recorded by the AO is that, at the instant of assessee, summons was issued to Shri Surender Kumar Jain and Shri Virender Kumar Jain, alleged entry providers as per the Investigation Wing. In response to such summons, they had duly appeared before the AO and their statement were also recorded on oath by him on 13.3.2014. Though the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax (2008}305ITR0202. (2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v . P Mohanakala 291 ITR 278. (3) Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214ITR801(SC);[1995] Supp 2 SCC 453 relied on K. S. Kannan Kunhi V. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757(Ker) considered. (4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169. (5) CIT-V Oasis Hospital P Ltd. [2011]333 1TR 119 (Delhi). (6) NR Portfolio - ITA Nos. 1018/2011& 1019/2011 Accordingly, he held that the amount of share application money of Rs. 55 lacs have been routed through bogus accommodation entries which is to be treated as unexplained cash credit to be added u/s 68. He has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 9. Before the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee made very elaborate and detailed submissions along with all the documentary evidences filed before the AO in support of the share application money received by the assessee from all these companies. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - i) Mechanical satisfaction of the Additional CIT u/s 151. ii) Non supply of reasons in the form same were recorded and also the proforma in which satisfaction of approving authority could be approved. iii) Non application of mind on the following information provided by DDIT Investigation in the absence of any supporting material provided with the information. 12. In so far as mechanical satisfaction u/s 151, he pointed out that the Ld. ACIT Range 15 has mentioned "approved in view of the reasons recorded above". Such an approval/ satisfaction is too mechanical and is conspicuous of any application of mind by either of authorities. In support, he has relied upon catena of judgments including those of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., 391 ITR 11; United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 258 ITR 317 (Del); Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del) and also judgments of Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. vs. ACIT and Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd. 231 taxman 0073. He submitted that, such mechanical a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP of revenue (supra) (7) Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported in [2004] 137 TAXMAN 479 (BOM.) (8) Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR110 (Del) (9) CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. - [2010] 325 ITR 285 (Del). (10) CIT Vs. Supreme Polypropolene (P) Ltd. - ITA No.266/2011 dated 30th October, 2012. (Delhi High Court) (11) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC) (12) CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (2009) 212 Taxation 275 (Raj. 13. CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Del) 14. Pionner Town Planners vs DCIT (supra) 15. Pushp Steel & Mining Ltd vs ITO (supra) The Hon'ble AM is party to the decision." 13. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the AO has not given any opportunity for cross examination of the statement. In so far as statement relied upon by the AO no adverse inference can be drawn based on such statement and in support several other judgements were relied upon including judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anadaman Timber Industries vs CCE 281 CTR 241. 14. Lastly on merits, besides oral argument he h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the A.O. Further reliance is also placed for the above proposition of law on the judgment of Hon' ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 2010 329 ITR271 (Del) (PB 90-91). •  Mere non production of a Director without anything more and where all relevant documents are placed on records which remained uncontroverted specifically, cannot justify adverse inference u/s 68 of the Act which is unlawful. Following case laws were relied upon by him to support this proposition : * CIT v. Jalon Hard Coke Ltd. in SLP Civil Diary No. 16078 of 2018 (SC); * CIT vs Orchid Industries 397 ITR136 (80m); * Pr CIT vs Hi-Tech Residency P Ltd (Delhi High Court) ITA NO.628/2016 Dated: 07.07.2017 * Pr. CIT vs Softline Creations P Ltd 387 ITR636 (Del) * Pr. CIT vs Rakam Money Matters Pvt Ltd ITA 778/2015 Dated 13.10.2015 (Del): * Pr. CIT vs. Goodview Trading Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO.377 of 2016 (Del) dated 21.11.2016. * Aksar Wire Products Pvt Ltd vs ACIT in ITA No.1167 /Del/20 15 dated 11/12/2015 * ACIT vs Madhusudan Packaging Pvt Ltd in ITA No.4930/Del/2017 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reference was made with the respective wards of the share applicants or the respective Banks to verify the genuineness of the companies. Under these circumstances, the addition u/s 68 cannot be upheld. Reliance is placed on following judgments: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 106 dated 14th March, 2017 (Delhi HC) 2. CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del) 3. Pre CIT vs. Green Valley Plywood Limited (ITA No. 358/2016 dated 1.6.2016) (Delhi High Court) 4. Pre CIT vs Rakam Money Matters Pvt Ltd ITA 778/2015 Dated 13.10.2015(Delhi High Court} 5. CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. (2012) 329 ITR271 (Del) 6. CIT Vs Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd 342 ITR 169(Del} 7. CIT vs. Orissa Corporation 159 ITR78 (SC) 8. CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd 330 ITR 603 (Del) 9. CIT vs Goel Sons Golden Estate P Ltd. ITA No. 212/2012 10. CIT Vs. Arunananda Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA NO.1515 of 2005, decided on 02.03.2010), (Kar High Court) 11. CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR146 (Del.) 12. Pr. CIT vs. Softline Creations Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 387 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nn.com 47 (SC) (2018) has also deleted the Issue of shares at disproportionate premium. 14. On the other land Ld. DR, submitted that so far validity of reassessment proceedings on account of mechanical satisfaction is concerned, he submitted that recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sonia Gandhi vs ACIT, reported in 407 ITR 594 on almost similar kind of satisfaction and approval has upheld the validity of 147/151. He strongly referred to para 49 of the said judgment. In so far as non application of mind on the information provided by DDIT Investigation Wing, he submitted that AO while disposing of the objections of the assessee has given very detailed finding and referred to the observations of the AO. He also strongly relied upon the order of the AO and Ld. CIT (A) in this regard. 15. Regarding no opportunity for cross examination he has referred and relied upon the following judgments : i. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO vs. M. Pirai Choodi 334 ITR 262 (SC) ii. Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kuwer Fibers (P) Ltd., 77 taxmann.com 345 (Delhi) iii. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecisions wherein Hon'ble Courts have interpreted approval accorded by competent authorities based on facts and circumstances of the case and have held that approval granted by the higher authority should reflect application of mind and should not be mechanical, because, in matter of acquiring jurisdiction the statute provides certain checks and balances which needs to be adhered in proper manner. One of the judgments strongly relied upon by the Ld. Counsel is of Pr. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., wherein the competent authority has mainly noted "approved" and nothing else. It was under these facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Court has observed that such an exercise u/s 151 by the competent authority appears to have been ritualistic and formal and required to record elaborate reasons, which is for safeguard and has to be meaningful. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. (supra). Now in the latest judgment, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sonia Gandhi vs. ACIT have taken note of earlier judgment of Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. and observed and held as under: "49. As far as the question of satisfaction recorded by the Principa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er satisfaction is discernible from overall facts and materials before him. Thus, in our opinion the approval grant by the Addl. CIT cannot be held to be purely mechanical or without application of mind. Thus, such a contention raised by the Ld. Counsel is rejected. 20. In so far as the contention that information supplied and reasons not provided in the proforma in which satisfaction of approving authority was granted, we find that AO has duly given the reasons as asked by the assessee and before us the entire proforma has been placed by the assessee in the paper book before us. This goes to show that such proforma was given to the assessee at some point of time and therefore, this contention of the assessee is not tenable. In any case it such an irregularity cannot be fatal that reason recorded given in the prescribed proforma which will invalidate the entire proceedings u/s 147/148, because what is relevant is, whether the AO had prima facie reasons to believe based on tangible material that income chargeable to escaped assessment and reasons in writing has been communicated to the assessee. If reason to believe has been recorded by the AO in writing which has been duly appro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he reasoning and finding of the AO before the appellate forum. It is only where reason to believe is completely divorced from the material on record and there is no live nexus with the escapement of income, then such a reason to believe can be held to be vague and cannot give jurisdiction to the AO for reopening any assessment. Though, here in this case AO has solely relied upon the report received from the Investigation Wing, but in such a report there was a clear cut information regarding assessee and the companies who have given cheque to the assessee along with details of annexure and the amount paid which has been tabulated in the reasons recorded which are prima facie in the nature of accommodation entry, and if AO has found that such amounts are also recorded in the books of the assessee, then it does gives rise to reason to believe that such credits are not genuine. AO then has all the powers to examine the credits and call for explanation of assessee and carry out detail scrutiny based on his own inquiry and verification /examination of all the evidences and explanation of the assessee. If after any inquiry some adverse material is found to controvert the assessee's explan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation money alongwith share application form, list of directors of the companies downloaded from MCA site, their balance sheets, ITRs and bank accounts, etc. 23. Once all these documents were submitted by the assessee, the AO carried out further inquiry by sending notices u/s 133(6) on the addresses of all the companies. Not only these notices were served upon the companies but they also duly complied with by sending their confirmations directly before the AO giving the entire details of their bank statements, balance sheets, assessment history, ITRs, board resolutions and other documents. None of these documents have been controverted by the AO, nor has he found any discrepancy in their confirmations and documents. AO has merely stated that assessee has not produced the directors of these companies. Nowhere has it been stated by the AO in his order that any summons u/s 131 was issued to these companies or to their directors whose details were provided to him, to ensure their attendance. One of the observations made by the AO is that these companies have regular debit and credit entries in their bank account and cheques have been issued to the assessee after clearance by way of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that, since assessee's name has figured in the seized annexure found during the course of search and seizure action in the case of Shri Surender Kumar Jain and Shri Virender Kumar Jain and assessee has been found to be one of the beneficiary, therefore the entire transaction of the assessee is in the nature of bogus accommodation entry. Though such a document found in the course of search does give rise to serious suspicion but such suspicion alone cannot be the basis to reject all the documentary evidences filed in support of the share application money. AO is required to carry out specific inquiry himself to ascertain the genuineness of the transaction. Here in this case, AO did carry out his inquiry u/s 133(6) from the subscribing companies, who corroborated the assessee's explanation and no discrepancy has been found by the AO in their documents. 24. One very important fact and distinguishing feature in this cases are that, AO has summoned the so called entry providers, Shri Surender Kumar Jain and Shri Virender Kumar Jain u/s 131, who duly appeared before the AO and in their statement recorded by the AO, and they duly deposed on oath that none of companies who have subsc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery far away from truth and I am again stating that I was never involved in the business of accommodation entry operation. Q. No. 6. My above mentioned assessee is alleged to have received share application money by way of bogus accommodation entries from M/s Fineage Leasing & Finance India Ltd., M/s Pelicon Finance & Lease Ltd., M/s Vogue Leasing & Finance Ltd, M/s Karishma Industries Ltd and M/s S R Cable P Ltd. These companies are amongst group of company controlled by you. Please answer. Ans. I am not associated with any of these concerns. Q.No. 7 I am showing you the name of the parties form whom my above mentioned assessee has received share application money. Please state whether you know any of them? If yes, how? Ans. I have seen the list of parties from whom this assessee has shown to have receive share application money. I do not have any link with them. Q. No. 8 In reply to Q. No.5 above you have denied to be and entry operator. Please state whether at any stage before any Authority you have admitted yourself being engaged in providing accommodation entries? Ans. No Q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired to be seen is, whether in the case of the assessee the documents found from them or otherwise show that assessee was a beneficiary of any accommodation entry or the companies who have subscribed to the shares of the assessee company were managed and controlled by these persons. These persons have categorically denied assessee was beneficiary or they are in any way connected to these companies. Further, nothing has been brought by the AO that any of the subscribing companies are related or controlled by these persons. Thus, the reasoning given by the CIT (A) sans any specific link found about these companies or assessee with the S.K. Jain and others, that they have actually provided the bogus transaction to the assessee, especially when they have stated that they were providing finance assistance to the companies and assisting as professionals for the share subscription etc, cannot be accepted. Atleast something should have found linking the assessee with accommodation entry from these persons through these companies. 26. Further, nowhere has it been brought on record before us that there is any specific trail of routing of unaccounted money of the assessee which has been re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urce of funds duly disclosed in their balance sheet filed along with the income tax return which has been assessed and not disturbed and if the source of funds are disclosed in the books are sufficient to cover up the investments made by them, then whether they have shown lesser income will not lead to inference that they do not have creditworthiness or capacity to make investment. Here in the balance sheets of all the companies there are huge funds available from where they have made investments. It is only by way of inquiry if it is found that these companies are only providing any accommodation entry then a doubt can be created about the creditworthiness of these companies. But without any such prima facie inquiry or material on record to prove that availability of huge investments in their balance sheet are duly supported by source of funds, then it cannot be held that there is a lack of creditworthiness. In view of our detailed finding given above, we hold that the reasoning given by the AO for sustaining the addition cannot be sustained and accordingly on merits the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 28. Both the parties have relied upon catena of decisions in their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry) Bank Cheque/RTGS Cheque Date Amount Through Annexure No. Pg- No 18-04-06 Timely Fincap P Ltd R N Khemka Enterprises P Ltd. IB CH. No. 295687 20-04-06 5,00,000 Bhagaria Loan A-55 27 20-04-06 Graph Financial Services P Ltd. R N Khemka Enterprises P Ltd. UTI CH. No. 024520 21-04-06 15,00,000 Bhagaria Loan A-S5 32 20-04-06 Graph Financial Services P Ltd. R N Khemka Enterprises P Ltd. UTI CH. No. 024521 21-04-06 13,00,000 Bhagaria Loan A-55 32 20-04-06 Graph Financial Services P Ltd. R N Khemka Enterprises P Ltd. UTI CH. No. 024522 21-04-06 10,00,000 Bhagaria Loan A-55 32 06/05/2006 Hillridge InvestmentsLtd. R N Khemka Enterprises P Ltd. KOTAK P No. 000439 05-06-06 10,00,000 Satish Goel A-58 6 06/05/2006 S R Cable P Ltd. ^ R N Khemka Enterprises P Ltd. KOTAK CH. No. 000106 05-06-06 15,00,000 Satish Goel A-58 6 06/12/2006 Sunny Cast & Forge Ltd, R N Khemka Enterprises P Ltd. UTI CH. No. 066925 13-06-06 15,00,000 Satish Goel A-58 18 06/12/200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Here in this year also, the assessee has filed various documentary evidences in the form of share application money, copy of bank statement of the companies subscribing the shares of the assessee company, copy of income tax return and audited balance sheets and other catena of documents similar to what was given in the appeal of the earlier year. This year also, AO had issued notices u/s 133(6) to these companies, in response to which confirmations and documents have been filed by them. The AO precisely on same ground that Directors have not been produced and on the same reasoning has confirmed the said addition. The observation and the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) are also exactly the same. 33. In so far as issue of validity of reopening u/s 147 is concerned, similar arguments and reasoning have been placed by the Ld. Counsel and also by the Ld. DR. therefore our finding given in the aforesaid appeal will apply mutatis mutandis as the facts are same. Thus, in view of our above findings the legal grounds raised by the assessee are treated as dismissed. 34. Again in so far as the merits of the addition are concerned the facts and circumstances as discussed in the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oldings P Ltd. UTI Ch. No. 046060 15/09/2006 &W.CWO A-61 14 1 26/10/2006 Vogue Leasing & Finance P ltd. RMP Holdings PLtd. UTI Ch. No. 046886 27/10/2005 10,00,000 Satisri <k»yal Ml 22 | 08/11/2006 Sunny Cast & Forge Ltd. RMP Holdirtfgs P Ltd. UTI Ch. No. 066968 09/11/2006 10,00,000 Satish Gc«ei MS 3 18/11/2006 Hillridge Investments Ltd. RMP Hidings P Ltd. UTI Ch. No. 008796 18/11/2006 10,00,000 S Bha,(c)itria MS 9l 10/01/2007 S R Cable P Ltd RMP Holdings P Ltd. UTI Ch. No. 045914 11/01/2007 5,00,000 Vimal Bhagariya A4* 8 10/01/2007 Pelicon Finance & Lease Ltd. RMP Holdings P Ltd, UTI Ch. No. 083406 11/01/2007 2/5.00,000 Vimail Sfcagariya A-m 8 19/01/2007 Sunny Cast & forge Ltd. RMP Holdings P Ltd. UTI Ch. No. 066991 19/01/2007 10,00,000 Vimal Bftagasriya A& 15 27/02/2007 Shalini Holdings Ltd, RMP Holdings 9 U<L UTI Ch. No. 080659 27/02/2007 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived from the parties in response to notice u/s 133(6) has proceeded to make addition simply based on information of the investigation wing. No further inquiry has been conducted by the AO. The alleged accommodation entry especially when the alleged entry operators, Shri Surender Kumar Jain and Shri Virender Kumar Jain have denied providing any kind of accommodation entry to the assessee. The AO has mainly referred to quantum proceedings to Shri Surender Kumar Jain and Shri Virender Kumar Jain to conclude that they were entry operators and based on this he has drawn a presumption that assessee also must have taken the accommodation entry from these two persons. Nowhere, he has verified the bank statement of the companies subscribing to the share nor examined the veracity of the source of the funds, specifically when they have the huge and sufficient funds available in the balance sheet. Accordingly, our finding given in all the earlier appeals will apply mutatis mutandis and accordingly the addition made by the AO is directed to be deleted. In so far as validity of reopening u/s 147 is concerned the same is decided against the assessee in view of the reasoning given in the earlier....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of signatures appended in it and names of directors are not mentioned in any of these document and in view of these facts, the genuineness of transactions remained unverifiable." 42. Not only that, the AO has also issued notices u/s 133(6) to all the companies from whom share capital has been received by the assessee in order to verify the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. However, as stated by the AO, no replies have been received or furnished by these companies in response to the notice u/s 133(6) and in most of the cases these letters have been received back unserved with the postal remark "no such company /left". The relevant observation of the AO in this regard is reproduced as under:- "Notices u/s 133(6) of IT Act were also issued to all the entities / companies from whom share capital is shown to have received requiring them to furnish the following documents to verify the creditworthiness, genuineness of transactions and identification of the entity, which is reproduced hereunder. The assessee was also asked to furnish the same in respect of all above referred parties. " ___________________, __________________....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut there being any adverse material on this regard. 44 On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that the very fact that these parties have not responded to the notices u/s 133(6) and the list of these companies giving share application money to the assessee has been found to be in the nature of accommodation entry arranged by Shri Surender Kumar Jain group, then the only inference which can be drawn is that the entire credit is not only bogus but also in the nature of accommodation entries which deserved to be confirmed and in support he relied upon the same judgment as has been relied upon by him in the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07. 45. After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as submissions made by the parties, we find that there is a slight change in the facts and circumstances in the present year as compared to the earlier years for the reason that in all the earlier years, all the subscribing companies have applied for share application money have duly responded to the AO in response to notice u/s 133(6) and had furnished all the documentary evidences as required by the AO, like copies of their bank accounts, copy of ledger account,....