TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. As far as charging of interest is concerned, it is a consequential in nature because charging of interest under section 234B is a mandatory aspect. Similarly challenge to initiation of proceedings under section 271(1)(c), it is a pre-mature in nature. Assessee has an independent remedy. Show-cause notice for imposition of penalty under section 274 of the Income Tax Act would be issued to it. In case penalty is imposed, then separate appellant remedy is provided. Hence this ground of appeal is also rejected. 4. Now we take the main ground of appeal, i.e. addition of Rs.11,04,51,450/-. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 28.08.2012 declaring 'NIL' income. Its case was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that assessee has raised fresh paid-up share capital of Rs.11,04,51,450/-, which includes share premium by issue of fresh share during the instant previous year. The ld. Assessing Officer straightway discussed position of law and then observed that assessee failed to submit specific details, hence he made the addition. 5. On a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed that the shares have been issued on premium to the following companies namely: (a) Mentor Insurance Brokers Private Limited. (b) Trendon Distributors Private Limited. (c) Navnidhi Commerce Private Limited. (d) Meghdoot Vanijya Private Limited. (e) Amritrashi Suppliers Private Limited. (f) Pradhan Dealers Private Limited. (g) Nishchaya Traders Private Limited. (h) Unitrenz Textiles Private Limited. The financials and the credentials and the business performance of each of the companies who have subscribed to the share capital and premium of the appellate company are discussed as follows: (a) Mentor Insurance Brokers Private Limited: (i) This company does not have any core business activity. The income from Operations during the financial year 2011-12 is loss of Rs. 3973. The income from operations i.e. from sale of goods and services in the last A. Yr. was NIL. The company had shown other income during the previous year of Rs. 16,419/-. The said figure in the last year was NIL. (ii) There are fixed assets shown of Rs. 43300/-. The figure last year was Rs. 43107/-. There are no inventories. (iii) The assessee company has also not shown ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t have any core business activity. The income from Operations during the F.Y 2011-12 is loss of Rs. 15,004/-. (ii) The assessee company has also not shown any core activity or business to justify issuance of shares at a substantial premium. The assessee company has reported a loss in the ITR. The total income as per computation of income is a loss of Rs. 15,004/-. The extent of operation does not justify the capacity of this company to pay such huge share premium. (f) Pradhan Dealers Private Limited. (i) The company is a Private Ltd Company incorporated on 20.03.2012 under the Companies Act, 1956. This company does not have any core business activity. The income from Operations during the F.Y 2011-12 is loss of Rs. 12,552/-. (ii) The assessee company has also not shown any core activity or business to justify issuance of shares at a substantial premium. The assessee company has reported a nominal income in the ITR. The total income as per computation of income is loss of Rs. 12552/-. The extent of operation does not justify the capacity of this company to pay such huge share premium. (g) Nishchaya Traders Private Limited: (i) The company is a Private Ltd Company i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, address and PAN particulars or relying on entries in the Registrar of company's website. The relationship of the assessee to the applicants should be at arm's length in such cases and this is what the appellant was required to establish. Also the concept of "shifting onus" does not mean that once certain facts are provided, the assessee's duties are over. If on verification, the information becomes false, unsatisfactory or unverifiable, the onus shifts back to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was required to present himself before the AO for examination and verification of the documents. However, the assessee has avoided the same as the summons were not complied with. The onus to prove the three factum is on the assessee as the facts are within the assessee's knowledge. The details available reflect some paper work or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness and identity are deeper and obtrusive. Verification of all aspects was needed but due to complete non-compliance, the applicant's case falls flat. The Apex court of the land has laid down the Human Probability Test to analyze the genuineness of the entry through logical analysis in the case of CIT vs. Durga Pr....