AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious disallowances. 2.1. We are concerned only with the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act on the Share Capital of Rs.1,40,20,000/- and Share Premium thereon of Rs. 18,22,60,000/- The assessee was called vide questionnaire dated 20.12.2012 to furnish details of share allotment during the Assessment Year 2011-12 with regard to the name, address, PAN, Confirmation, Return of Income and Bank Statement of the share subscribers to whom shares were allotted. The assessee was asked to provide a copy of resolution sanctioning issue of shares at premium. The assessee company did not produce the details and sought repeated adjournments on 27.12.2013, 06.01.2014 and 10.01.2014. On 17.01.2014, the assessee submitted 44 names, address, number of shares allotted and total amount received from the subscribers but failed to furnish their PAN, confirmation, Return of Income and Bank Statement. The assessee was requested to produce the balance details. 2.2. On 19.03.2014, the assessee company filed its reply which contained consent letter of top ten subscribers. The consent letters also carrying the earlier name of the assessee's company namely Kaleiodoscope Films Ltd. and the letters are dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admitted. 5.5.5. Thus, the genuineness of these share application amounts can be determined only on the basis of evidences which were already before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings. A perusal of the assessment order as discussed above shows that the appellant had only furnished names and address of the share applicants and by such details the appellant cannot be said to have been discharged the onus laid down by it by the provision of section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Besides this, the only other detail furnished by the appellant was vide its letter dated 19.03.2014, vide which the appellant had submitted copies of consent letter of top 10 subscribers subscribing to its equity share to be issued on preferential basis during the year under consideration and had claimed that such letter covers full details of subscribers, copy of cheque etc. This list of top 10 subscribers has been reproduced above. As observed by the AO, along with this letter the appellant had not provided any identity proof, copy of return of income or bank statements through which the said money was received. On being show caused by the AO vide order sheet noting dated 19.03.2014, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to huge amounts of shares. The very fact that these shares were not issued by means of public offer shows that the promoters and the directors of the appellant company must know the alleged shares subscribers personally. Despite this, the appellant has failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of such alleged share holders and the genuineness of transactions with them. Hence, the addition made by the AO as per the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act is correct. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has confirmed the additions of Rs.14,28,490/- made on account of the stamp duty and registration fees treating the same as capital expenditure. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has confirmed the additions of Rs.19,62,80,000/- on account of the alleged non-genuine share application and share premium credited to books of account during the year under consideration made by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal evidences. 5. Per contra, the Ld. CIT/DR Mr. A.P. Singh appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted Rule 46A cannot invoked. Since Rule 46A can be invoked if (a) the assessing officer has refused to admit any evidence or (b) the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted piecemeal information which is not sufficient as requested by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also has not filed any evidence regarding the efforts made by it for the purpose of collection of such other details from the shareholders. The consent letter given by the shareholders is only giving details about the subscriber of number of shares and copies of cheques which are all dated November 2010, whereas the Assessing Officer issued the first questionnaire on 20.12.2012 and final opportunity given on 28.03.2014. However the assessee failed to provide details. Thus the assessee was not prevented from producing the details before the Assessing Officer. There is no explanation given by the assessee, why the above documents not produced before the Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assesse company. Thus it clearly shows that the assessee has not produced the available documents with it before passing the assessment orders and the same is produced which is six years old before the Ld. CIT(A) as additional documents which cannot be entertained. Further perusal of the list of investors and their returned income was between the range of Rs. 1,65,764/- to Rs. 2,60,109/- but they invested ranging from Rs. 56 lakhs to Rs. 84 lakhs. Thus the creditworthiness of these investors are not proved beyond doubt. This view of ours is supported by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Pvt. Ltd. relied by the ld. CIT(A) in his order as follows: Held that if both the appellate authorities had concurrently came to the conclusion that sufficient opportunities were granted to the assessee, it was not possible to go behind the said findings which were primarily based on appreciation of evidence on record. So far as admitting additional evidence under rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules was concerned the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the benefit under the said rule was not available to a person who was negligent, no....