TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct'). 2. The Revenue in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer in respect of receipt of Rs.7,60,00,000/- by the assessee company which was treated by the Assessing Officer as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to para 3 of the impugned assessment order to submit, wherein, the Assessing Officer has noted as under: "3. In compliance to the notices issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1), AR of the assessee appeared, filed various details as required, p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy reference, is reproduced as under: "5. Conclusion: Ground No.1 & 2 I have considered the order of the A.O as well as the submission of the appellant. I have also considered the judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant. The facts of the case have already been discussed as above. It is observed that in the year under consideration the appellant company had raised share capital of Rs.7,60,00,000/-from 6 parties. In the course of the assessment proceedings, to verify the receipt of share capital, the AO issued notices u/s.133(6) to all the 6 share applicants and in response, they all confirmed the transactions submitted the details/document in respect of the subscription of shares of the appellant. In the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee company can be treated as explained and the Same cannot be taxed aqain. Further, it is apparent from the records that the notices u/s.133 (6) issued to the shareholders were served on the their respective address by the postal authorities and in response, they confirmed the transactions and also submitted the details of the source of funds for making investment. Hence, the identity & creditworthiness of the shareholders are not in doubt. Further, all the share application money was received through banking channels. Therefore, the issue for my consideration now is -whether the share capital of Rs.7,60,00,000/- raised during the year by the appellant can be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act or not. Wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of two share subscribers. However, in the case of other four share subscribers, the additions were made regarding their source of income. Now, it is settled law, once the addition has been made in the hands of the share subscribers, the investments by which share subscribers in the hands of the other company whose shares have been subscribed stood explained then no additions in such a case would be warranted in the hands of the assessee company as it would amount to double additions of the same amount. Even if the said addition stand confirmed in the appeal or stand deleted, in both the instances, the investment in the hands of the assessee company will stand proved. Reliance has been placed in this respect on the decision of the Coordinate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng transaction thereof was not genuine and on what grounds. The AO, in our view, could have taken an adverse inference, only if, he would have pointed out the discrepancies or insufficiency in the evidences and details received in his office and pointed out as to on what account further investigation was needed by way of recording of statement of the directors of the subscriber companies. Even if the directors of the subscriber companies have not come personally in response to the summons issued by the AO, in our view, adverse inference cannot be taken against the assessee solely on this ground as it is not under control of the assessee to compel the personal presence of the directors of the shareholders before the AO.The Ld. Counsel for th....