TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me be deleted. 2) For that the Ld. AO erred in forming his opinion for making the above said addition only on the ground of non-appearance of Directors of the Company in compliance to notice issued u/s. 131 of the Act. 3) For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the above said addition in disregard of the binding judgments of Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble ITATs which directly lays down ratio on the merits in case of addition on account of share capital raised by the assessee company thus the same be deleted. 4) For that the Assessment order passed is bad in law and on facts of the case and is full of biased and preconceived notions regarding share capital raising and its modus operandi. 5) For that the Ld A O erred in overlooking the explanation filed by all the subscribers of capital in pursuance to notice under section 133(6) which find no mention at all in the order. 6) For that the Ld AO erred in applying proviso to section 68, which is applicable from AY 2013- 14. 7) For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the interest us 234 A/B/C the same was unjustified and hence the same be deleted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) to submit that the assessee had made detailed submissions before the CIT(A), which have also been reproduced in the impugned order. However, the ld. CIT(A), without considering any of the submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee, confirmed the addition in a mechanical manner. The ld. counsel has further submitted that even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished the relevant documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the share-subscribers and genuineness of transaction and the ld. CIT(A) has referred those documents to the Assessing Officer and called for remand report. That even during the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not bother to examine any of the documents furnished by the assessee and he has further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions on the basis of such a non-speaking and vague remand report without pointing out any defect or error in the documents furnished by the assessee. The ld. counsel inviting our attention to para 7 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) has submitted that even in the remand report, the Assessing Officer has categorically admitted that in compliance to the notices issued u/s 133....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersonal presence. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has explained that the share application money including share premium during the year was received from the following 9 share applicants, the details of which are as under: Sl. No. Name of the shareholder 1 Aditi Sanchar Suvidha Private Limited 2 Centak Distributors Private Limited 3 Gajbadan Barter Private Limited (Presently: Aeric Ventures Private Limited 4 Goldline Comtrade Private Limited 5 J.P Engineering Corpn Private Limited 6 Nutshell Vyapaar Private Limited 7 Omega Ventures Private Limited 8 Paridhi Finvest Private Limited 9 Fresh Vyapaar Private Limited 6.1 The Assessee in this case, as noted above, explained about the identity, creditworthiness and financials etc. of each of the share subscriber company. He has further submitted that following 5 companies out of the 9 investor companies are Non-Banking Finance Companies duly regulated by Reserve Bank of India. He in this respect placed reliance on the certificates issued by Reserve Bank of India: i) Aditi Sanchar Suvidha Private Limited ii) Centak Distributors Private Limited iii)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts viz., confirmatory statements, invoices, challans and vouchers showing supply of bidi as against the advance. Therefore, the attendance of the witnesses pursuant to the summons issued in our view is not important. The important is to prove as to whether the said cash credit was received as against the future sale of the produce of the assessee or not. When it was found by the CIT(Appeal) on fact having examined the documents that the advance given by the creditors have been established the Tribunal should not have ignored this fact finding." 7. So far as the reliance of the Ld. DR on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd." reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48(SC) has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the "the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) laid down that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit- worthiness, then the Assessing O....