TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 of the Act in respect of share capital and share premium. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 19.09.2012 declaring total income Nil. The statutory notices were duly issued and served on the assessee including the notice u/s 142(1) dated 31.03.2014 along with questionnaire which was complied with by the assessee by filing the details/explanation in the office of the AO on 17.042014. The counsel of the assessee appeared before the AO from time to time during the assessment proceedings and also furnished information as desired by the AO. Thereafter a letter was issued on 23.01.2015 along with notice u/s 142(1) calling upon the assessee to comply the same beside requiring the assessee to produce the directors of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also by issuing summon u/s 131 in compliance to which Ms. Sarita Giria, one of the directors of the subscribing companies appeared before the AO, however the statement was not recorded but eventually dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not produce the requisite details as called for by the AO THEREBY overlooking all the evidences as filed by the assessee as well as by the share subscribers. 5. The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted before us that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ignoring all the evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) comprising the names, addresses, PANs, Audited annual accounts, ROC certificates , bank statements filed by the assessee as well as subscribers. The Ld. A.R veh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve sufficient sources available with them and it is not the case of AO or Ld. CIT(A) that any cash was deposited into these companies before making investment in assessee company. The Ld. A.R stated that the AO has reached a conclusion on the basis of the fact that since these companies were having same address and common directors; therefore they are shell companies without giving any substantive findings as to how these subscribers constituted shell companies. The Ld. A.R also assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) affirming the order of AO passed u/s 144 of the Act despite all the facts/evidences being filed by the assessee as well as by the subscribing companies before the AO. The Ld. A.R contended that both the authorities below instead of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Application No. 11993 of 2007 dated 11.01.2008 The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts , the appellate order may kindly be reversed and AO may be directed to delete the addition as the assessee has discharged his onus by filing all the evidences qua share subscribers and the onus shifted upon the revenue remain un discharged. 6. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied heavily on the order of authorities below by submitting that the mere filing of documents qua the subscribers are not sufficient and the burden/onus of the assessee as provided u/s 68 of the Act has not been discharged. The Ld. D.R though admitting that the notices issued u/s 133(6) were complied with by the share subscribers. The ld DR also admitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee during the year has raised share capital/share premium by issuing 65,500 equity shares at face value of Rs. 10/- each at a share premium of Rs. 290/- per share thereby collecting Rs. 1,96,50,000/- from three group companies who have common directors and place of businesses. We note that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings called for various information/explanation/details from the assessee which were duly furnished before the AO comprising names, addresses, PANs, audited balance sheets, bank statements and confirmations from the share subscribers. We also note that the AO has issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the three subscribers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CIT vs. Steller Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, even then under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Court admitted that there were some bogus share holders and the money may have been provided by some other persons. But it would have been sensible to reopen the assessments of the person alleged to have advanced the money and how the amount in respect of increase in share capital could be assessed in the hands of the assessee company itself was beyond understanding. 8. We also note that in para 7.7 of the appellate order, the Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding tha....