TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arising out of Assessment Order dated 26.03.2015, passed under Section143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,00,00,000/-made u/s 68 as assessee itself failed to substantiate the genuineness of share transaction, identity and creditworthiness of share-holders even in response to u/s 131 of the IT Act issued to the assessee company for producing directors of share holding companies. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in points of law, the Ld. CIT (A), was justified in treating the transaction through shares as beyond the ambit of Section 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et, bank statement, confirmation from shareholders and others relevant documents such as Form No. 2 with Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Despite the submission of documents the Ld. AO issued summons u/s 131 of the Act, the directors of the assessee company requiring their personal appearance. In response to the summons, documents were submitted but directors failed to appear in person. Additionally, the Ld. AO claimed the summons issued to the directors of the shareholders were not received by them based on these facts. The AO concluded that the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction were not proven, and the addition of Rs. 9 Crore was made unexplained cash deposit. Accordingly, u/s 68 of the Act in the assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited. 2) M/s R. R. Commosale Private Limited, the Assessment Orders of the AY 2012-13 were passed us. 143(3) without taking any adverse view. Therefore, it can be assumed that the respective Assessing Officers have all verified the accounts and therefore any amount that is credited from these two companies to the appellant company is fully explained. The assessment in the case of the other 5 share holders, namely, 11 Ms Mutual Merchants Private Limited. 2) M/s. Dhanamrit Commercial Private Limited, Mis Kamna Housing Private Limited. 4) Mis Uphar Vanijya Private Limited, 5) M, Karnimata Properties Private Limited were also passed us. 143(3) where additions us 68 & 141 of the Act were made. Therefore, the entire capital of all the above m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arising out of them cannot viewed as unexplained 68 of the IT Act In view of the facts & circumstances of the save it is held that the addition of Rs 9,00,00,000- for the share capital raised by the appellant from 7 share applicants as unexplained cash credit us 68 of the Act was not justified. Ground no, 1 & 2 allowed. Ground No. 3 is general in nature don't require adjudication." 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal before this Tribunal on multiple grounds. 8. Ground Nos. 1 and2 are connected, therefore, both are adjudicated simultaneously the main grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9 Crore made u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee had failed to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders as well as genuineness of the transaction. The assessee had submitted details of all 7 shares subscribers companies (i) Confirmation of subscription of shares & sources of fund (ii) Copy of relevant Bank Statement (iii) Copy of allotment advice (iv) ITR Filing acknowledgment for AY 2012-13 (v) Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account as on 31.03.2012 (vi) Copy of assessment order, which were also furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) and before the Ld. AO while framing the assessment and those were duly examined by the authority below. Therefore, we find no merit in the Revenues contentions that share capital and share premium money should be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 11. In ground N....