TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2014. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and against statutory notices, the assessee has furnished details. The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 19.03.2015. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee company has received investments from various companies. When the Assessing Officer has called for confirmation, the AR of the assessee could not furnish the confirmation in respect two companies (1) Sanguine Media Ltd. and (2) IRIS Media Works Ltd. to the tune of Rs..1,00,00,000/- & Rs.. 2,80,00,000/- respectively. Hence, the investments from these two companies were treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed and brought to tax. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed confirmation from the above two companies namely (1) Sanguine Media Ltd. and (2) IRIS Media Works Ltd. and the ld. CIT(A) forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer calling for remand report vide letter dated 07.10.2016. The Assessing Officer did not reply despite reminders send by the ld. CIT(A) vide his letter dated 07.01.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case has to be considered on its own facts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. In view of the above there is no violation under Rule 46A in this case, in my considered view. 5.4 Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 5.4.1 I have carefully considered AO's order and AR submissions. Let me first summarize AO's case. According to AO the fact that the appellant had received Share Capital amounting to Rs. 3,80,00,000/- from the two companies namely, IRIS Networks Limited and Sanguine Media Limited for which no confirmation was received, itself would be a sufficient reason to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N, confirmations and providing that the money was received through banking channel will lead to sufficient compliance with regard to section 68. Thus, addition made and confirmed is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-1 v.M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held that the amendment in section 68 is prospective and not retrospective. 5.4.4 In the case of Lovely Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) it was held that if share application money is received by an assessee from subscribers, whose name are given to Assessing Officer and the same turn out to be bogus, then the revenue is free to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law. Thus, unlike other credits wherein one has to explain three ingredients viz;- identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness or transactions, the onus on the assessee company is limited while explaining credit in the nature of share capital etc, 5.4.5 Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find substance in the argument of Authorised Representative. In view of the same I have no hesitation in holding that the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. The case of the assessee is that the assessee has barrowed money from various creditors and in respect of two creditors namely (1) Sanguine Media Ltd. and (2) IRIS Media Works Ltd., the assessee could not file confirmation and therefore, the Assessing Officer has made addition under section 68 of the Act. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed confirmation letters from both the parties and submitted that all the amounts were received through RTGS and addition may be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the confirmation letters filed by the assessee and also bank statements filed in the form of paper book, he called the remand report the A.O. The A.O has not responded in respect of remand report called by the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) after examining the facts, bank statements and also confirmation letters filed by both the creditors, he came to the conclusion that the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness, source therefore, addition cannot survive. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) delete....