TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Shalini Holdings Ltd. C-4/151, First Floor, Sector 6, Rohini. 560000/- 2 M/s Nandal Finanace and Leasing Pvt. Ltd, C-33, 2nd Floor, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi. 1120000/- 3 M/s Aasheesh CapitaTj Services Pvt. Ltd, Royal Palace, G-55, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. 1400000/- 4 M/s Attractive Fin-lease ltd. 203, 18/12, WEA, Pusa Lane, Karol Bagh, Delhi- 5. 560000/- 5 M/s Finage Leasing and Finance (India)Ltd 106, Patel Nagar, New Delhi 1400000/- 6 M/s Sunny Cast & Forge Ltd. 14A/33, WEA, Jetking Building, Guru Nanak Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 840000/- 7 M/s Apporva Leasing Fin. and Investment Co. Ltd, 104, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. 1120000/- 8 M/s Avail Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, 555, Double Storey Market, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. 980000/- 9 M/s Solomon Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 401, 3198/15, 4m Floor, Gali No.1, Sangatrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi. 560000/- Total 93,80,000/- 4. The A.O. called for certain information from these parties u/s 133(6) of the Act ,i.e PAN Number, proof of filing return of income for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce address of the companies which the said parties had explained and written their new addresses in their information letters. The submissions of the assessee were forwarded to the A.O. for his counter comments who reiterated his contention made in the assessment order. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the contentions of both the assessee and the A.O. held that the documents forwarded to the A.O. had not been controverted by him and the said documents showed that the investors company had sufficient capitals and reserves that investment had been made through bank accounts and copy of their income tax returns had also been submitted. In view of the same, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was not in doubt. The Ld.CIT(A) further stated that the A.O. had disallowed the investment merely because the parties could not be produce. Thereafter referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble High Court the Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee had fully discharged its onus to prove the genuine of the transaction and accordingly, deleted the addition made. The relevant finding of the Ld.CIT(A) at para 6.3 of his order is as under: "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or before 25.03.2013 on which date the assessment was completed and the information collected thereafter, remained with the appellant. The appellant further relied on various case laws and submitted that no addition can be made u/s 68 in the case of the assessee company. It was also seen from the assessment record that the assessee vide letter dated 18.03.2013 submitted that the assessee can not be penalized for conduct of third parties over which it has no control. Further, vide order sheet entry dated 25.03.2013, it was submitted by the counsel of the appellant that it is not possible to produce these parties on 25.03.2013, as the concerned persons are out of station on account of long week and an occasion of Holi and Good Friday holidays. However, the A.O. completed the assessment on the same date. The appellant also submitted that there was a change of address in some cases and the new addresses were duly filed in the information letters now. All such documents were forward to A.O. which is not controverted. Further, as per details submitted, the shares capital of the investor companies and reserves and surplus are as under:- M/s Vishal Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd., Patiala ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 ITR 298 (Del) the assessee company received share application money. The Hon'ble High Court held that the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet once he proves the identity of the creditor/share applicant by either furnishing their PAN or Income tax assessment number and shows the genuineness of transactions by showing money in his books either by account payee cheques or by draft or by in other mode, these onus of proof would shift to the revenue. Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it could not give the revenue the right the invoke section 68. Moreover it is a settled law that the assessee need not prove the "source of source." In this case the tribunal has confirmed the order of CIT (A) deleting impugned addition and held that the assessee has been able to prove the identity of share applicants and the share application money has been received by way of account payee cheqeus. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Export (P.) Ltd. decided on nth January, 2008 by the Supreme Court of India reported in 216 CTR 195: It has been held as under:- "If share application money is received by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on about genuineness of investors without giving an opportunity to the AO to call the companies so as to complete the inquiry he had initiated in respect of companies, especially since four companies were not found at their given addresses, three companies did not respond to the inquiry notice and the balance two companies furnished incomplete information. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on fresh information letters and changed addresses admittedly not supplied by assessee to the AO during the assessment proceedings, without admitting the fresh addresses and information letters as fresh evidence by following the procedure laid down under Rule 46A and without giving any opportunity to the AO to examine such evidence, only on the ground that the information forwarded to the AO remained uncontroverted, without appreciating the fact that without admission of fresh evidence by the Ld. CIT(A), the AO could not examine the same. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., without appreciating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s confronted to the A.O. who did not find any infirmity in the same. This fact has also remained uncontroverted before us. Thus it stands that the concerned parties had also independently confirmed the transactions. The CIT(A) ,we find also took note of the financial position of the investor companies and found that they had sufficient capital and reserve to make the investment. Ld.DR has been unable to controvert this fact also. The creditworthiness of the investor companies thus stands sufficiently established. Moreover the addition in the impugned case is only of the share premium received, and we agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that having accepted the share capital received from the same investors, there was no reason to doubt the premium thereon . 10. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the Ld.CIT(A) that the genuineness of the transaction stood established and we do not see any reason to doubt the same. Even the Ld. DR has been unable to point out from the order of the A.O. as to why the impugned transactions were to be looked at with suspicion. The assessee had established the genuineness of the transactions by filing relevant documents and the same was....