TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, the facts are, assessee is a resident company. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 09.07.2010, declaring income of Rs.7,77,959. As stated by the Assessing Officer, assessee is engaged in the business of finance and investments. 4. In course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer, while examining the financial statement of assessee, noticed that assessee has shown increase in issued capital to the extent of Rs.9,80,000 and share premium to the extent of Rs.39,20,000. Whereas, the increase in number of shares issued during the year is 98,000. Further, he found that shares having the face value of Rs.10 were sold with premium thereon of Rs.40. Noticing these facts, Assessing Officer issued a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eated the amount of Rs.49,00,000 representing share application money as unexplained cash credit and added back to the income of assessee. Further, Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.49,000, being the expenditure allegedly incurred by the assessee towards commission for availing accommodation entries. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, he sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted, Assessing Officer on mere presumption and assumption based on wrong facts has treated the share application money received by assessee as unexplained cash credit. He submitted, neither the statement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onducted by the Investigation Wing, Assessing Officer has made the additions without making any independent inquiry. He submitted, the fact that Shri Aseem Gupta had subsequently retracted his statement was not considered by the departmental authorities and the additions were made simply based on the statement of Shri Aseem Gupta. He submitted, before the departmental authorities the assessee has furnished every supporting evidence to prove the genuineness of share application money. He submitted, without properly considering the evidences, additions have been made. He further submitted, identical addition made in case of many other assessees solely relying upon the statement of Shri Aseem Gupta has been deleted by the Tribunal and decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een that Shri Aseem Gupta is a Chartered Accountant. In reply to question No.3, Shri Aseem Gupta had categorically stated the name of the entities audited by him. A careful reading of the statement recorded from Shri Aseem Gupta nowhere suggests that he is the director of either Moderate Credit Corpn. Ltd. or Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., who had advanced share application money to the assessee. It is relevant to observe, in course of proceedings before the first appellate authority, assessee had furnished additional evidences including affidavit of Moderate Credit Corpn. Ltd. and Sam Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Additional evidences furnished by assessee were forwarded to the assessing officer seeking his comments. In the first remand report dated 20.02....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d equity shares having face value of Rs.10 each with a premium of Rs.40 were allotted to the share applicants on 31.3.2010. No adverse material has been brought on record by the departmental authorities to demonstrate that the unexplained cash of assessee was ploughed back by way of share application money. In fact, the cash transactions noted by the assessing officer in the assessment order are much prior to the impugned assessment year, hence, could not have formed the basis for addition under Section 68 of the Act. A reading of the assessment order as well as the order of the first appellate authority would make it clear that no independent inquiry was conducted by them to ascertain the real nature of the transaction. Merely relying upon....