TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1097
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ite of several opportunities. Therefore, we proceed to decide this appeal exparte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld.DR and upon perusal of the available records. 3. The grounds raised in this appeal are as below:- "1. The learned assessing officer has erred in adding Rs.8,00,000/- u/s 68 on the ground of preference shares is a dubious transaction for which no proper explanation was given. However the appellant provided all the necessary information and explanation along with documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings. The learned assessing officer has acted on the basis of suspicion. 2. The learned assessing officer has erred in disallowing legal and professional charges of Rs.4,11,935/- considering the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for evasion of tax and laundering of assessee's unaccounted income by showing the said amounts received from these two companies as share capital and premium. The Ld.CIT(A) made addition of Rs.8 lakhs being unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act on account of alleged share subscription money of Rs.5 lakhs received from M/s Sonal Sil Chem Ltd and Rs.3 lakhs received from M/s Sonal Cosmetics Exports Ltd. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the other additions made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has failed to rebut the same. Penalty proceedings were also initiated. The assessee also preferred appeal against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) which was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) wherein it was held that in the present case, the assessee has failed to discharge initial onus cast upon him to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the said transaction. The Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the said decision alongwith other judicial precedents such as the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Kol) and the Apex Court judgement in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT 3 and Roshan Di Hatti vs CIT 4. 8. From the above observation, we are of the considered opinion that ground 1 raised by the assessee des....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observation, we deem it fit to dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 10. Ground 3 pertains to the disallowance of Rs.48,805/- pertaining to Registrar of Companies filing fees, registration and stamp duty on the grounds that the same is a capital expenditure. The assessee has stated that the said expenses were incurred for issue of preference shares. The assessee has claimed the same to be for the purpose of business as it was revenue in nature. It is observed that the Ld.CIT(A) has reiterated the view of the Assessing Officer that the same is in the nature of capital expenditure as against the assessee's claim of revenue expenditure. The Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab ....