TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion was filed. It was stated in the condonation petition that the order of the ld. CIT (A) is neither communicated nor any alert on passing of the appellate order by the ld. CIT (A) was sent either by SMS or on email or through any other mode of departmental system of network, therefore the order could not be accessed. The condonation petition further states that the order of ld. CIT (A) was downloaded from the departmental system of network on manual checking basis. It was further stated that from the month of January 2023 to May 2023, there was tremendous pressure of disposing of the time barred cases and therefore, due to nonavailable of sufficient system resources, the delay has occurred. In petition it was stated that the main reason ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the assessment proceedings. During the year the assessee had issued 16400 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 1240 to M/s Memori Sales Pvt Ltd., who is one of the sister concerns of the assessee. The assessee replied the show cause notice issued by the ld. AO, however summon issued u/s 131 of the Act to the Director of the company, remained non-complied with. The ld. AR thereafter rejecting the reply of the assessee added the money raised in the form of share capital/ share premium of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- from the sister concern as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to satisfy the necessary ingredients of Section 68 of the Act. 07. In the appellate proceedings the ld. CIT (A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of funds was filed by the appellant in the reply submitted and the same was considered by the Ld AO in the remand report. The Ld AO has observed that the sources of funds in the hands of M/s Memori Sales Pvt Ltd is explained. However, due to paucity of time, the sources of funds in the hands of the four sister companies (1. M/s Saptatarang barter Pvt Ltd, 2. M/s Zion Infra Developers Pvt Ltd, 3. M/s Liluah properties Pvt Ltd, and 4. M/s Loksangha Pvt Ltd) could not be examined. 7.1 The appellant has further relied on the decision Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272, wherein it is held that the amendment to section 68 is prospective and is applicable from AY 2013-14. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it was found satisfied. Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd.(supra) in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Finally, the ld. AO after rejecting the reply of the assessee made the addition on the ground that there was no compliance to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) called for the remand report from the ld. AO which is extracted in Para 5 at page no. 8 and 9 of the appellate order. It is stated in the remand report that the assessee is not a shell company in the department data base. Similarly, it was also stated that a inspector was deputed and the assessee was found to be genuine and existing at his place. Thereafter the source of investment of the investors in its hand were explained. Finally, the ld. AO noted that the source of the capital contribution and source of source also found to be ....