2020 (12) TMI 606

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:- 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it be held that in absence of incriminating material the assessment order u/s. 153A/143(3) is without and/ or in excess of jurisdiction and bad in law and on the facts and hence be concealed and or annulled and or the additions made in the assessment order be deleted. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 11,31,00,000/- on account of unaccounted money introduced in the books as bogus share / premium u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act is uncalled for and unjustified. This additio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Assessing Officer made it clear that these entities are shell companies having dummy directors. 4. The Revenue has strongly supported that the assessment u/s. 153A has been justify treated deleting its total income 70 Taxmann.com 234 (Kerala ) in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Trichur. vs. ST. Francis Clay Decor Tiles, 49 Taxmann.com 98 (Kar) in the case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore, 27, Taxmann.com 167 (AP) in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs. DCIT and 75 Taxmann.com 215 (Kerala) in the case of E.N.Gopakumar vs. CIT (Central) Learned. CIT-DR placed reliance on the Assessing Officer's detailed discussion that the impugned share application money deserves to be added as unexpla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an instance of the share capital having group entities from thereby jurisdiction does not qualify for section 68 unexplained cash credits additions :- "I have carefully considered the fact of the case, the assessment order and the written submission of the appellant. The appellant has received an amount of Rs. 9,99,99,900/- on account of share capital and share premium from M/s. General Capital and Holding Co.Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad during the year. The AO held that the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction were not proved by the appellant and accordingly made the addition under section 68 of the Act for the above amount. The appellant has submitted that all three ingredients such as, credit worthiness, genuineness an....