TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt u/s 143(3) on 05/03/2016. 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the issue is squarely covered in assessee's favor by the earlier decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, ITA No.732/Mum/2016 order dated 05/10/2018. The copy of the same has been placed on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the facts are quite identical. The Ld. DR, though relied on the order of Ld. AO, could not controvert the fact that the issue has already been delved into by the Tribunal in AY 2011-12. 3.1 The material facts are that the assesse being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in hospitality business was assessed for the year u/s 143(3) on 05/03/2016. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further the assessee had submitted specific details regarding each of the three subscribers and the payments were received through banking channels. All these subscribers had sufficient net worth to advance share application money. A further perusal of bank statement of subscribers would show that no cash was deposited before advancing share application money to the assessee which prove that the transactions were not accommodation entries. The signed confirmations were also placed on record and therefore, the transactions were to be considered as genuine one. The assessee had satisfied all the three tests of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. As against this, Ld. AO failed to demonstrate that the receipts were mere accommodation e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2012-13 of M/s. Shining Merchants Pvt. Ltd., and for A.Y.2011-12 of M/s. Hotel Padmini Palace Pvt. Ltd., to prove the creditworthiness of the share applicants. The CIT(A) also observed that assessee had filed affidavit for the share applicants confirming the transactions entered with the assessee. It was further observed that the AO in the remand report had not disputed the correctness of the above said documents which reasonably establishes the identity and genuineness of the transaction and which also proves creditworthiness of the share applicants. As per CIT(A), once assessment order u/s.143(3) had been passed in the case of share applicants named M/s. Shinning Merchants Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Hotel Padmini P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ease from a share applicant named M/s. Hotel Padmini Palace Pvt. Ltd on entering into an agreement on 16/11/2010 on debiting the account of capital work in progress and correspondingly crediting the share application account. The assessee had also furnished the confirmation of account, property card and affidavit of such share applicant confirming the transaction with the assessee. Thus, it was found that assessee had not received any money from M/s. Hotel Padmini Palace Pvt. Ltd., and addition u/s.68 cannot be made and at the utmost capital work in progress could be reduced since there is a nexus of share application with capital work in progress. 11. The CIT(A) has also given due justification for the premium charged on issue of ....