TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds: 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 62,82,500/- made by AO on account of share capital received by assessee, under Section 68 of the Act. 3. (i) On the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition despite assessee bringing ample evidences on record to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants as well as the genuineness of transaction. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed without pointing any defect in the documents and evidences brought on record by the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition despite the shareholders themselves having confirmed the transaction to the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash by the appellant company. In view of the above facts, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction has not been established. Hence, the share application money received from Sh. Sanjeevji remains unexplained. Smt. Suman Arya: The appellant company claimed to have received Rs. 3,00,000/- as share application money from the Smt. Suman Arya / Suman Rana. However, in her confirmation filed before the Assessing Officer she has stated that she has invested Rs. 1,00,000/- in the shares of the appellant company and Rs. 75,000/- has been paid by way of cheque on 28.04.2011 and same has been debited in the account of Smt. Sumar Arya / Sumar Rana. She has also stated that she has paid Rs. 25,000/- which has been withdrawn from her account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bawana. In support of the same, she has filed copy of her bank account wherein Rs,25,000/- has been withdrawn on 28.04.2011. She is working as a teacher with Education Department, Nerala Zone. In support of her employment she has filed Form No.16 issued by the Education Department wherein the total income has been shown at Rs. 3,26,334/-. In view of these facts, the source of invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before Assessing Officer in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the I. T. Act stating that he has given share application money of Rs. 3,00,000/-. He has stated that he is receiving income from agricultural activities. Looking to the landholding of the applicant it is not possible to save this much money. Further, the applicant has not filed any identify proof in support of his identity, therefore, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is not established. Sh. Virender Arya: The applicant claimed to have given share application money of Rs. 10,99,000/- to the appellant company during the year in cash. He has stated that he has invested in the shares of the appellant company and source of the money is agriculture income. In support of his contention, the applicant has filed copy of jamabandi and land is situated at Badli, Bahadurgarh. On going through the land document, it is seen that land is in the name of applicant's wife. However, except the land holding records nothing has been filed to prove that appellant is receiving income from agriculture activities. In support of the identity, the appellant has filed copy of the driving license of Sh. Virender....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome in the case of appellant. Hence the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction have not been established. Sh. Mahendra Arya: He has given Rs. 10,00,000/- as share application money to the appellant company in cash. During the course of remand proceedings, he has filed confirmation before the AO in response to notice u/s 133(6) wherein he has stated that he has invested Rs. 10,00,000/- during the year and Rs. 15,50,000/- in the earlier years. He has stated that he is receiving income from agriculture activities. In support of the landholding he has filed nakal jamabandi wherein 1/3rd land has been shown in the name of the father of the applicant and his brothers. There is no other source of income of applicant. The applicant has not filed any bills of sale bills of agriculture produce. In view of these facts, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction have not been established. In view of the facts discussed above about the share applicants in the appellant company, it is held that share application money received from Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Madhulika of Rs. 3,00,000/-, Suman Arya of Rs. 1,00,000/-, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC). She relying on the aforesaid decision of Apex Court submitted that in a case where Share Capital/Premium is credited in the books of account of the Assessee company, the onus of proof is on the assessee to establish by cogent and reliable evidence the identity of the investor companies, the credit-worthiness of the investors, and genuineness of the transaction to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. She submitted that considering the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, no interference to the order of CIT(A) is called for. 10. We have heard the rival submission and perused materials on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to the addition of Rs. 62,82,150/- u/s 68 of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee has received share premium and share capital during the year from 18 parties aggregating to Rs. 93,52,000/-. AO treated the entire amount of Rs. 93,52,000/- as being unexplained. When the matter was carried before the CIT(A), he granted relief to the extent of Rs. 30,52,450/- and upheld the addition to the extent of Rs. 62,82,150/-. The reasons for upholding the ad....