TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"]. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the ld. AO of making addition to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/- on the ground of alleged unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 2) The Assessee craves, to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete, change or vary all or any of the Ground or Grounds of Appeal." 3. Succinct facts are that during the assessment proceedings, assessing officer got information from DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai. As per the information, the assessee had rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso been held that if it is assumed that the share application money/share capital represented undisclosed income it should be considered as income in the hands of the shareholders and not company itself as the company cannot be its own shareholder nor can it apply for its own shares. It has also been held by the court that once the identity of the shareholder is established than no addition should be made in the hands of the company for share application money/share capital." 4. However, assessing officer has rejected the contention and held that assessee failed to establish any cash credits in the books of accounts of the assessee as per section 68 of the Act. The assessing officer further held that assessee received amount from accomm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee- company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. In the light of the above judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court, ld Counsel pleads that assessee has submitted plethora documents, as noted above, and the assessing officer was free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments of share subscribing companies. Therefore, ld Counsel contends that assessee has proved three ingredients of section 68 of the Act, namely, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, hence a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20MH1995PLC088743, confirming that the company is duly registered as Public Ltd. Co. with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai. (B) Olive Overseas Private Limited: (i) Confirmation from the company for having made the payment to the assessee company of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of share investments. (Copy enclosed at Page No. 66), (ii) Copy of relevant page of bank statement indicating the fact of payment of above sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the assessee company by account payee cheque. (Copy enclosed at Page No. 67), (iii) Copy of PAN Card (Copy enclosed at Page No. 68), (iv) Copy of acknowledgement for return of income filed for the above referred A.Y. 2009-10. (Copy enclosed at Page No. 69), (v) Copy of the Audit Report and audited statement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that neither the report of the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai nor the verification report of some of the companies nor the statement of Mr. Pravin Jain or Mr. Rakesh Sharma on which reliance has been placed were confronted with the assessee, so as to enable the assessee to submit his case vis-avis the contents of the said reports / statements. The ld Counsel also pointed out that no cross examination of either Mr. Pravin Jain or Mr. Rakesh Sharma was allowed before placing reliance on their statements. For that ld Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). 12. We note that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee t....