TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1050
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m of Rs. 390. The assessee had received total amount of Rs. 1,62,20,000/- against such shares during FY 2011-12 including premium of Rs. 158145000/-. The assessee was asked to furnish details /documents with regard to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness and as per the AO the assessee failed to do so, as a result of which, disallowance u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 162,20,000/- has been added in the total income of the assessee and further disallowance u/s 14A an amount of Rs. 2,07,415/- has also been added. 3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed thereby holding that the assessee could not furnish any satisfactory explanation with regard to the transaction involving share allotment at such share premium either before the AO during the assessment proceeding or during the remand proceedings. However, it is the fact that during the current FY 2012-13, the assessee has allotted shares although the amount was received during preceding years on account of share application money. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred the present appeal. 4. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who were allotted shares during the AY 2012-13 are as follows: Sl No. Name of shareholders PAN No. of shares Paid up capital Premium Total 1. Deepa Holding Pvt. Ltd. AAACD9589N 30650 3,06,500 1,19,53,500 1,22,60,000 2. Maryan Industries Pvt. Ltd. AACCM0948G 9400 94,000 36,66,000 37,60,000 3. Sakthi Traders Pvt. Ltd. AADCS5600A 500 5,000 1,95,000 2,00,000 The assessee has contended that 1. In the instant case, the assessee had accepted Rs. 1,62,200/- from three share subscribers as per following details: Assessment Year Amount received AY 2010-11 12,00,000/- AY 2011-12 1,50,20,000/- AY 2012-13 (Underlying AY) Nil That is in the preceding assessment years to the year in which the addition has been done by the Ld. AO. 1. The same was disclosed as liability in the Financial Statements as at 31.03.2011 under the head "share Application money Pending allotment" amounting to Rs. 1,60,20,000/- and "short term borrowings" amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- as is evident from the Annexure B of the paper book under the heading "Audited financial Statement" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....along with other relevant documents, it is observed that the alleged amount as received by the assessee as per table below not related to relevant AY 2012-13. 1. Deepa Holding Pvt. Ltd. AAACD9589N 30650 3,06,500 1,19,53,500 1,22,60,000 2. Maryan Industries Pvt. Ltd. AACCM0948G 9400 94,000 36,66,000 37,60,000 3. Sakthi Traders Pvt. Ltd. AADCS5600A 500 5,000 1,95,000 2,00,000 Total 40550 4,55,000 1,58,14,500 1,62,20,000 On analysis of materials gathered u/s 133(6) from the above parties it is found that the amount received by the assessee company is not in the financial year 2011-12 hence provision u/s 68 in the AY 2012-13 does not arise. Also, the bank statement reveals that the transactions took place in earlier years i.e. prior to FY 2011-12. The contention of the assessee found to have been in order." 7. Going over the remand report, there is no doubt the AO in sending the remand report has clearly stated that the amount received by the assessee company is not in FY 2011-12. Hence the provision of section 68 in AY 2012-13 does not arise. The remand report further reveals tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alance. Though M/s R. S. Malani has refused to give its consent to convert its unsecured loan into share application money in the name of four persons, but the fact remains same that the above credit is appearing in the books of the assessee since previous year and therefore cannot be a subject matter of section 68. We therefore, are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the above amount to the extent of Rs. 76,98,000/- could not come under the purview of Section 68 and therefore, uphold his order to this extent. Ms. Quereshi, learned Advocate appearing for the revenue, was unable to point out any fault with the aforesaid fining recorded by the learned Tribunal. Section 68 of the Act, insofar as the same is material for our purpose, reads as follows: 68: Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. It is not the....