TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the addition of Rs. 45,00,0007- on account of share application 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 sixte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Report 5.8 Notices u/s.133 (6) were also issued to the 14 concerns at the stated address from whom premium has been received by the assessee. The detail 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 rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd its true nature in respect of share premium to the extent of Rs. 45.00,000 from M/s Bharosemand commodities Pvt Ltd. Considering the parameters as discussed supra, it is established beyond doubts that the assessee 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 gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings furnished the copy of ITR with all annexures, confirmations of the person and valuation report. No doubt, the primary evidence was furnished by the appellant. The AO thereafter, made the required enquiry f f and found out that the 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition u/s. 68." 7. Against this order assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records, learned counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has furnished all the necessary documents in support of the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s submissions regarding papers submitted in this regard should be given precedence over the actual fact about the non-existence of the said party is absolutely unsustainable. It is settled law that revenue authorities are not supposed to put on blinkers. This has been duly expounded by honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (80 TAXMAN 0089) ......... 12. Furthermore we find that the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (TS-106-SC-2019) is applicable on all fours in this case. In the said case honourable Supreme Court has upheld the finding of the assessing officer which was given on the basis of finding that the said parties were not in existence at the given address....