TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... money received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit. First we would like to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 3. The assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit vide ground No. 4 to 10 wherein the assessee has prayed before the Bench that the addition as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 18,00,00,000/- is wrong and against the facts of the case as the assessee has satisfied the necessary three conditions as envisaged by provisions of section 68 of the Act and the AO has not examined the documents/information furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee has also challenged that the assessment so framed by the AO as bad in law as the AO has failed to bring on record any concrete evidence regarding the money changing hands and also ignored the fact that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and others have retracted statements given during search. Besides the assessee also challenges the assessment order on the ground of non granting of cross examination to the assessee despite specific request moved by the director of the assessee Shri Dipak Singhvi and also that the amendment to section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable from 2013-14. The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounts in respect of all the investors. Besides the AO has also issued summon under section 131 of the Act. However, in some cases these were served and in some cases the inspector reported that the entities were not available at the available addresses. The investor filed the copies of their balance sheet and ITRs etc. Finally, the AO came to conclusion that the assessee has failed to prove the test of genuineness and treated the same as non genuine and added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 by framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 18.02.2016. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under: "5.8. I have considered the submissions and facts on record carefully. The distinguishing feature in this case noted is that the director of the appellant company was summoned and statement recorded at the time of the assessment proceedings itself. The statement-is reproduced in the assessment order. It is highly improbable that the director Shri Deepak Singhvi could not name the person who was contacted for i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orded under section 132(4) of the Act stood retracted by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and by various other persons afterwards. The Ld. A.R., therefore, submitted that the assessment so framed by the AO is bad in law and addition made of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- deserved deletion on this count. In defence of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal as follows: 1. ACIT 30(3), Mumbai. v/s. Shreedham builders (ITAT Mumbai) 2. Arceli Realty Limited v/s. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(1), Mumbai. (ITAT Mumbai) 3. Anil Chhaganlal Jain v/s. ACIT-18(1), Mumbai. (It AT Mumbai) 4. Income Tax Officer, 13(2)(3), Mumbai. v/s. M/s. Shreedham Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) 5. M/s. Shree Laxmi Estate Pvt. Ltd. v/s. ITO, Wd. 15(3)(3), Mumbai. (ITAT Mumbai) 6. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai v/s. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal. (ITAT Mumbai) 7. DCIT-12(1)(2), Mumbai. v/s. Bairagra Builders P Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) 8. M/s. Komal Agrotech P. Ltd. v/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad. (ITAT Hyderabad) 9. ITO-4(2)(4), Mumbai. v/s. M/s. Kushboo Exports Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) 10. Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. 15 Taxman.com 183 (HC-Bom) 9. CIT v/s. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012 (HC-Bom) 10. CIT v/s. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 795 (SC) 11. CIT v/s. Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 904 of 2016(HC-Bom) 12. CIT v/s. GP International Ltd. 186 Taxman 229 (HC-Punjab & Haryana) 13. CIT v/s. Electro Polychem Ltd. ITR 661 (HC-Madras) 14. CIT v/s. AKJ Granites P. Ltd. 501 ITR 298 (HC-Raj) 15. CIT v/s. Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Ltd. 298 Taxman 247 (HC-Delhi) 16. CIT v/s. Supertech Diamond Tools (P.) Ltd. 44 Taxmann.com 460 (HC-Raj) 17. Pr. CIT 5 v/s. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. ITA 169/2017 CM Appl. 7385/2017(HC-Delhi) 18. CIT v/s. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. ITA No. 348 of 2008 (HC-Delhi) 19. Nathu Ram Premchand v/s. CIT 49 ITR 561 (HC-Allahabad) 20. CIT v/s. Expo Globe India Ltd. 51 Taxmann.com (HC-Delhi) 21. CIT vs. Victony Spinning Mills Ltd. 50 taxmann.com 416 (HC-Madras) 22. CIT v/s. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. 194 Taxman 43 (HC-Delhi) 23. CIT v/s. M/S. Nishan Indo Commerce Ltd. ITA No. 52 of 2001(HC-Calcutt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly submitted that in view of the aforesaid submissions the addition may kindly be deleted by reversing the order of Ld. CIT(A). 10. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly controverted the argument of the Ld. A.R. by submitting that the assessee undisputedly availed the accommodation entries from entities belonging to Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and the investment was made in the assessee company in the form of share capital and share premium. The entire modus operandi of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and his associated concern was found to be a bogus and sham, systemic and organized mode of providing entries to various entities in the market by accepting cash and issuing cheques. The assessee is also one of the beneficiaries of the same and therefore the arguments of the assessee that these investments were genuine are devoid of truth and has rightly been added by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. submitted that the mere fact that the statement given by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and others during the course of search have been retracted later on will not affect the bogus nature of the transactions. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the shares were issued at an exorbitant rate ....