TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 560
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal are as under: "1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred while confirming the additions of Rs.99,88,082/- on account of share application/ premium received by the appellant by recording incorrect facts and making irrelevant observations. Therefore, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT (A) may be liable to be quashed and the exorbitant additions made as such may be liable to be deleted. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred while confirming the additions of Rs.49,99,559/- on account of share application / premium received by the appellant, in as much as the same was received on 4,h March 2011 i.e. during the earlier ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015, the Assessing Officer observed that the entire receipts from IL & FS were shown as closing balance in the books of IL & FS. The Assessing Officer took the view that the creditworthiness of IL & FS remained unproved because IL & FS has shown losses in return of income pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 29/03/2016, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal holding that the assessee failed to discharge onus of creditworthiness. Aggrieved again, the assessee filed this present appeal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 29/03/2016. In the course of appellate proceedings, the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of order of Hon'ble Rajsthan High Court in CIT vs. Prameshar Bohra, 301 ITR 404 (2007) (Rajsthan) (d) Copy of order of Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 2020 SCC Online ITAT 13412 (Order date 03/12/2020 in ITA No.3800/Del/2017) (C) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue regarding creditworthiness of IL & FS stands covered in favour of the assessee vide assessment order dated 24/03/2022 passed by the Assessing Officer himself in the subsequent assessment year. i.e., Asst. Year 2015-16, in which no adverse view was taken in respect of the fresh amount of Rs.53,82,200/- received by the assessee from IL & FS by way of share application/share p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness of IL & FS. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that proviso to section 68 of IT Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01/04/2013 had no application for AY 2012-13 to which this appeal pertains. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to internal report of Income Tax Department, vide F. No. DIT (I & C.1)/Chd/2018-19/3073 dated 08/03/2019 wherein transaction of IL & FS with the assessee was accepted as explained and verified. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order dated 12/08/2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. in ITA No.71/2015 (supra), [in which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court duly considered CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t dispute the legal contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee, that proviso to section 68 of IT act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f., 01/04/2013 had no application for Asst. Year 2012-13 to which this appeal pertains. (C.2.1) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid amount of Rs.99,88,082/- received by the assessee is duly reflected in the Balance Sheet of IL &FS as investment. There is also no dispute that the transaction between the assessee and IL & FS received clean chit in internal report of Income Tax Department vide aforesaid F. No. DIT (I & C.I)/Chd/2018-19/3037 dated 08/03/2019. It is further not in dispute that no adverse view was taken by the Assessing Office....