TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nafter referred to as ld. AO). ITA No.2868/Mum/2019 ( A.Y.2010-11) This appeal in ITA No.2868/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2010-11 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)-48/IT-74/DCCC-2(3)/2017-18 dated 25/02/2015 respectively (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 24/10/2017 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). ITA No.2864/Mum/2019 ( A.Y.2011-12) This appeal in ITA No.2864/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)-48/IT-76/DCCC-2(3)/2017-18 dated 28/02/2019 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 23/10/2017 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total income at Rs. 9,40,910/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 dated 27/03/2015, after recording the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment on account of non-disclosure of full and true material facts necessary for assessment. The ld. AO observed that he had received the information from the DGIT (Inv) Mumbai in the case of the assessee that the assessee was in receipt of funds in the form of share capital and share premium of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- from M/s Avance Technologies Ltd., and M/s Prabhav Industries Ltd. Further, the statement of Devang Dinesh Chandra Master, Director of M/s. Empower India Ltd., has confirmed that M/s Avance Technologies Ltd., and M/s Prabhav Industries Ltd. are controlled and managed by Shirish Chandrakant Shah. Therefore, based on the information received from the DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai, the ld AO has made the addition of Rs. 2,60,00,000/-. 3.2. The ld. AO observed that assessee had received share capital and share premium from the following parties during the year under consideration as under:- Sl.No. Date of transaction Name No.of shares allocated Issue Price (Rs.) Total Value Total Secu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground No.1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening of assessment is dismissed. 4. It is not in dispute that assessee had indeed received share capital with share premium from M/s. Avance Technologies Ltd., and M/s. Prabhav Industries Ltd., during the year under consideration. The details of the receipts are already tabulated hereinabove. We find that assessee had submitted the following documents before the ld. AO:- a) Details of share capital and share premium received; b) Name and address of the shareholders from whom share capital and share premiums were received ; c) Bank statements of shareholders for the relevant period; d) Copy of ITR acknowledgement of shareholders; e) Computation of total income of shareholders for the relevant years; f) Relevant abstract of balance sheet and profit and loss account of shareholders wherein the monies invested in the assessee company are duly reflected; g) Copy of share application form applying for equity shares; h) Copy of PAN Card of the shareholders; i) Copy of Memorandum of Articles and Association of the shareholder companies; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idering the future prospects of the assessee business. It was submitted that assessee is in the business since 2007 and commands significant Goodwill, excellent past performance and high investors' confidence resulting into bright future prospects for the assessee in the long run. It was submitted that these aspects were duly appreciated by the shareholders and accordingly the shareholders had agreed to invest in the assessee company at a premium. 4.5. We find that assessee by furnishing all the aforesaid documents had duly explained the nature and source of credit in the form of share capital and share premium received from the aforesaid two shareholders. From the balance sheet of the shareholders, it could be seen that they are having sufficient creditworthiness to make investment in the assessee company. Similarly all the shareholders are duly assessed to tax and had filed their income tax returns and ROC returns. This proves the identity of the shareholders. All the transactions are routed through account payee cheques in the regular banking channels. The justification for premium was also duly made by the assessee by giving explanation in writing. This clearly proves the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,01,00,000/- u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in considering the share capital issued by the Appellant as unexplained cash credit for the year under consideration. It is submitted that appellant has submitted relevant documents to prove the identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the party. It is therefore prayed that addition made on account of unexplained cash credit shall be deleted and necessary direction shall be given in this regard. 3. Without prejudice to above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,51,500/- (1.5% of Rs. 3,01,00,000/-) being unaccounted commission expenditure on the above share capital issued by the Appellant for the year under consideration. It is therefore prayed that above addition shall be deleted and necessary direction shall be given in this regard. 4. Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 7. We have heard riv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31/12/2018 7.5. We find that for both the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13 in support of receipt of share capital and share premium, the assessee had furnished all the relevant documentary evidences thereby discharging primary onus cast on the assessee in terms of Section 68 of the Act. We hold that the onus thus, thereafter shifts to the revenue to rebut the assessee's stand as well as documentary evidences by bringing on record cogent material to dislodge the same. This was admittedly not done by the ld. AO for both the years. We find that the addition was solely made based on a third party statement which was never confronted to the assessee either by providing statement together with evidences, if any for the rebuttal of the assessee or for cross-examination of the assessee. We also find from the perusal of the Tribunal order dated 22/10/2020 in the case of Amirashmi Finstock Pvt. Ltd that this Tribunal had also recorded the finding that Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah had even filed an affidavit on 20/12/2019 wherein he had categorically denied having provided any accommodation entries. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the various judic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the date of hearing of appeal. 10. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee has received share capital and share premium from the following parties:- Name of the Party No. of Shares Amount paid up Share premium Total Amount received Yantra Natural Resources (Earlier known as Shri Ganesh Spinners Ltd) 12500 5,00,000/- 2,45,00,000/- 2,50,00,000/- Advance Technologies Limited 62500 4,00,000/- 1,96,00,000/- 2,00,00,000/- Mahan Industries Ltd., 50000 1,00,000/- 49,00,000- 50,00,000/- Total 125000 10,00,000/- 4,90,00,000 5,00,00,000/- 10.1. Both the parties before us mutually agreed that the facts of the case prevailing in the case of this assessee are exactly identical to the facts prevailing in the case of Seth Carbon And Alloys Pvt. Ltd., for A.Y.2010-11 except with variance in the name of the shareholders and figures. The addition has been made u/s.68 of the Act for the same reasons of Seth Carbon And Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Hence, the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for this assessee also except with name of the shareholders an....