TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditional evidence under Rule 46 A. 4. (a) The order of the CIT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. The assessee is a non-banking finance company and had been engaged in the business of providing loans as investment in shares and securities of other companies. The return of income u/s 139(1) declaring an income of Rs. 88,919/- was filed on 31/3/2010. The Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,34,04,919/- thereby making addition related to unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act with respect to procurement of accommodation entries to share application money from non-descript companies. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not correct in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A without giving proper justification. The Ld. DR submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the documents filed. I have already held that the appellant was prevented from discharging its onus on account of insufficient opportunity and was also prejudiced and, accordingly, I had admitted the additional evidence filed by the appellant. I have examined the evidence filed before the AO as well as the additional evidence filed during these proceedings. My observations / findings with regard to each case are as under: Sl. No. Name of the applicants Amount (Rs.) OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS 1. APT Fincap (P) td. 22,00,000 ITR for AY 2009-10 with audited balance sheet, ITR for AY 2011-12, share application and bank statement are filed. Bank statement does not indicate any cash deposit to establish that appellant introduced its own money. Adverse view cannot be taken. 2. Aurochem Softech (P) Ltd. 30,00,000 The case was assessed u/s 143(3) for AY 2007-08 on 29.12.2009 and u/s 143(1) for AY 2009-10 on 04.09.2010 by the Department itself. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 3. Chintapurni Builders (P) Ltd. 30,00,000 ITR for AY 2009-10 with audited balance sheet, ITR for AY 2011-12 and share application ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sustained and is deleted. These grounds of appeal are allowed accordingly." 8. We find that the Assessing Officer chose not to consider the evidences on merit and simply stated that these parties were not found. Thus, the assessee in our opinion has proved the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of these parties. The case of the sister concern in Superb Developers (supra) has also dealt with some of the parties involved in the present assessee's case. We find that the Tribunal in Superb Developers (supra) held as under: "8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As regards Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal, the CIT(A) rightly taken into considerations the evidence filed by the assessee during the Assessment proceedings. There was no fresh evidence submitted by the Assessee. This fact was not denied by the Revenue. Therefore, Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. On merit of the appeal filed by the Revenue, it is pertinent to take note about the order passed by the CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2006-07 which was handed over by the Ld. AR during the hearing. The CIT(A) for A.Y. 2006-07 held as under:- "I ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00000 19 Intelife Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 3500000 20 Kay Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 1500000 21 Kela Devi Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2000000 2000000 22 Wiseman Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 3000000 1500000 23 Shweta Mehandi Products Pvt. Ltd. 2000000 24 Vaishno Devi Land & Building Developers Pvt. ltd. 1000000 TOTAL 8300000 1200000 8075000 25800000 7500000 5.3. I have examined the evidences filed and my observations / findings with regard to each case are as under: Sl No. Applicant Companies OBSERVATIONS/FINDIGNS 1 Oracle Cables Pvt. Ltd. The case was assessed for AY 2007-08 u/s 143(3) by the Department itself on 29.12.2009. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise 2 Arsey Hosiery Pvt. Ltd The case was assessed for AY 2007-08 u/s 143(3) by the Department itself on 01.12.2009. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 12 Multitech Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. ITR for AY 2008-09 was filed on 29.03.2009 vide acknowledgment No.64402491290309 and ITR for AY 2011-12 was filed on 29.03.2012 vide acknowledgment No.370520691290312. Copies of audited balance sheet and bank statement were also filed. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 13 Ribbel Manufacturers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd. ITR for AY 2008-09 was filed on 22.03.2009 vide acknowledgment No.60418950220309. Copies of audited balance sheet, share application and bank statement were also filed. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 14 Scient Informatics India Pvt. Ltd. The case was assessed for AY 2007-08 u/s 143(3) by the Department itself on 16.12.2009. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 15 Sevbro Domestic Appliances Pvt. Ltd. ITR for AY 2008-09 was filed on 22.03.2009 vide acknowledgment No.60434730220309. Copies of audited balance sheet, share application and bank statement were also filed. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2009 was also filed. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. Co. appears to have the source for investment. 24 Vaishno Devi & Building Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITR for AY 2011-12 was filed on 20.03.2012 vide acknowledgment No.356036291200312. Copy of the audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2009 was also filed. Therefore, the question of non-existence of this co. does not arise. Co. appears to have the source for investment. 5.4. It would be seen from the above table that it cannot be concluded that the share applicant companies did not exist or that the transactions were not established. Only in two case, viz. Vidur Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Wiseman Marketing Pvt. Ltd., copies of the ITRs could not be furnished by the appellant. Even in these cases, copies of the balance sheets filed indicate that the companies had the funds / sources to make investment in the share application towards the appellant company. The revenue cannot be taking two different stands. On the one hand the revenue is accepting and admitting compliance to its own laws and procedure by way of filing of ITR, payment of taxes, processing an....