TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion money & share premium received from Bharosemand Commodities Pvt Ltd u/s 68, treating the same as not genuine & from undisclosed source. 2. The Learned CIT(A) ought not to have made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 45,00,0007- on account of share application money and share premium received. 3. The addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of share application money and share premium received requires to be deleted. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee this case is engaged into business of investment in shares and securities. During the course of assessment assessing officer observed that assessee has received share application and share premium from sixteen parties, amounting to Rs. 2,24,00,000/-. With respect to the receipt of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tail replies filed in this respect are taken on record. It is learnt that party at Kolkatta namely M/s Bharosemand commodities Pvt. Ltd. has not complied to notice u/s 133(6) of I.T act 1961.Therfore commission was issued to Kolkatta office as per letter dated 13-03-2015 and Inspector of Range Shri Bibrota Roy Chaudhury has been deputed for field enquiry. The Inspector conducted enquiry alongwith The inspector Shri Vinay Kumar Sonwani from office of DIT(I&CI), Kolkatta. The enquiry report of the Inspector has been received and the same is taken on record. The contents of enquiry report is reproduced below for reference: "As directed verification of the said party located at P-72.prince street, 3rd floor Kolkatta 7000072 is carried out on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company could not substantiate its claim of having received the said sums of money from the stated person towards share application/share capital and share premium. 4. Thereafter the assessing officer also referred to a catena of case laws in support of his proposition. 5. Against the order assessee appealed before the learned CIT(A). 6. Learned CIT(A) noted that after detailed enquiry at Kolkata the assessing officer has found that the said party namely M/s Bharosemand commodities Pvt. Ltd. was not available at the given address. That persons residing nearby also stated that no such company operates from the said address. Hence learned CIT(A) held that the onus shifted to the assessee to prove the existence of the said company. In absen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... party M/s Bharosemand Commodities Pvt Ltd was not available on the given address and the A.O. also noted that the persons residing nearby stated that no such company operates from such premises. Thereafter, the onus shifted on the appellant to prove that the said company, M/s Bharosemand Commodities Pvt Ltd is in existence. The appellant should have given the correct address, the name and address of the concerned person so that it can be said that the appellant has established the onus lying on it. But, in the instant case, the appellant has merely relied on various case laws and not tired to explain why such a huge fund is received from such non- existent entity. In various instances, it is found that there are shell companies and they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. He submitted that the financials of the said party has also been submitted. He submitted that income tax order of the past years has also been given. He further submitted that the transaction is through banking channels, he also submitted that all the papers of share application and share issue are available, he referred to several case laws in support of his proposition including the following :- * CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bom HC) * CIT vs Green Infra Limited 78 taxmann.com (Bom HC) * CIT vs Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd.1433 of 2014 (Bombay HC) * CIT vs Haresh D Mehta 86 taxmann.com 22 (Bombay HC) * Pr CIT vs Paradise Inland Shipping (P....