TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of making investments in shares and securities. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 21-09-2009 declaring a total income of Rs.91,463/-. The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO received information from the investigation wing that the assessee has taken bogus accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.45.00 lakhs from various persons. Hence the assessing officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2016. The assessee filed various details in order to prove the cash credit of Rs.45.00 lakhs received by it during the year under consideration. The AO, without examining those details and without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) also did not examine the documents furnished by the assessee to prove the cash credits. He simply relied upon following decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme court and confirmed the addition:- (a) PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (103 taxmann 48)(SC) (b) R.L Traders vs. ITO (100 taxmann 332)(SC) (c) NDR Promoters (P) Ltd vs. PCIT (109 taxmann.com 53)(SC) The Ld A.R submitted that the cash credits received by an assessee is a factual aspect which has to be examined on the basis of facts prevailing in each case. However, the Ld CIT(A) has not examined the facts prevailing in the present case and further he has not shown the parity of facts between the present case and the cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord. During the year under consideration the assessee has received share application money from the following companies:- Alka Diamonds Ind. Ltd - 12,50,000 Kush Hindustan Ent Ltd - 10,00,000 Nakshatra Business P Ltd - 12,50,000 Olive Overseas P Ltd - 10,00,000 45,00,000 The case of the AO is that the above said companies belong to Pravin Jain group who are involved in giving bogus accommodation entries and hence the AO did not examine the documents furnished by the assessee to prove the cash credits and accordingly assessed the amounts as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also did not examine the documents furnished by the assessee. He has placed reliance on the propositions laid down by Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... full set of Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account of all the said four investor companies for the FY 2008-09 (AY 2009-10). I notice that all the four companies are assessed to income tax. A perusal of the financial statements of these four companies also show that they had net worth much more than the investments made by them in the assessee company. 11. Thus, I notice that the assessee has furnished necessary documents in order to prove the three main ingredients relating to cash credits. On the contrary, I notice that the AO has not brought any material on record to rebut the documents furnished by the assessee. 12. The Ld D.R relied upon the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Leena Power Tech Engineers P Ltd....