TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely based on information received from DGIT (Inv) Mumbai, which being in general nature & not specific and hence liable to be quashed. 2. The hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law by confirming addition w/s 68 of Rs. 81,00,000 received on account of share capital, on the ground that assessee company has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the credit worthiness of the allotees and the genuineness of the transaction. 3. The hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law by indirectly confirming the action of the AO of violation of natural justice by the A.O. by not conducting independent inquiry, ignoring the evidences and proofs and explanations offered during the course of hearing and making addition on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 4. Your appellant craves to add to ammend, alter, delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final date of hearing." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of renting one commercial premise at Vashi to the Citi Bank, had filed its return of income on 05.11.2007, declaring total income of Rs. 1,83,985/ -. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f such discussion the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 5. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision by the ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred further appeal before the ITAT which is under consideration before us in the present matter. 6. At the outset, apropos, ground no. 1 of the present appeal, the ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed not to press, accordingly the same has been treated as dismissed being withdrawn. 7. Besides the legal ground no. 1 which is not pressed by the assessee, the only grievances which is raised pertains to the addition u/s. 68 for Rs. 81,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital which has been treated as unexplained cash credit by the ld. AO and subsequently confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 8. On the aforesaid issue ld. AR reiterated the facts from the order of ld. AO. He submitted that the companies / investors which are treated as ingenuine / bogus by the Ld. AO, are held to be genuine and transactions with them are considered to be explained, thereby the additions made by Ld. AO are vacated by the ITAT under various orders, Ld. AR placed reliance on such cases and submitted a list of the same before us for our perusal, which is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., vs M/S. Centaurus Equities Private Ltd on 5 April, 2021 9. Ito 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs Vhm Apparels P. Ltd, Mumbai on 9 September, 2019 10. M/S. Jds Ventures India Ltd, ... vs ITO Mumbai on 17 October, 2022 (ITA No. 1597/MUM/2021) 11. Acit Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai VS M/S Chemicon Engineering ... on 17 June, 2022 (Ι.Τ.Α. Νο.7907/Mum/2019)" 9. It is further submitted that all the documents necessary to satisfy the needs of section 68 are submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment to prove the identity, credit worthiness of the investor companies and genuineness of transactions. List of such transactions submitted before us are as under: "27. Documents related to Share Investment by Real Gold Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. :- (i) Share application form (ii) Power of attorney (iii) Board resolution (iv) List of shareholdings (v) Signature verification of director (vi) 2nd Annual Report which includes Notice, Director's Report, Auditor's Report, Balance sheet, Profit & Loss A/c with schedules and ITR for AY 2005-06 (vii) PAN, Incorpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the credit worthiness of the allotees and genuineness of transaction was an erroneous finding by the Ld. CIT(A). Since the ITAT in its orders (listed supra) had accepted the Identity, Credit worthiness of aforesaid parties / investors and genuineness of transactions with them, in present case the same may not be decided otherwise. 13. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee company was involved in receipt of accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital / premium through the companies operated by Shri Praveen Jain, which is categorically admitted by him on oath as per his statements recorded during the search u/s 132(4) of the Act. Ld. AO also issued summons to the investors, u/s 131 through inspector but the parties were found missing on their address on record. Ld. SR DR further submitted that the information furnished by assessee before the Ld. AO are manipulated and after thought as the signature on confirmation copies which are available on paper book of the assessee are found to be identical i.e., signed by same person with no name mentioned below the signature. Ld. Sr DR further referred to page No. 10-11 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies are not available on their stated addresses. Subsequently, Ld.AO tried to serve the summons through Ld. AR of the assessee company. However, the summons was again return unserved with the remark "Left". Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 81,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act, treating the amount received as subscription of share capital being unexplained cash credit for the relevant year. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of Ld. AO being dissatisfied with the submission made by assessee before him stating that the onus cast upon the assessee could not be discharged to the satisfaction of appellate authority or Ld. AO in terms of sec 68 of the Act. Before u/s. Ld.AR submitted that the transaction with the aforesaid so-called bogus investors from whom the assessee has received the money in the form of subscription of share capital are examined by the jurisdictional ITAT in various appeals enlisted supra. Therefore, the identify, creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of the transactions with such parties by the assessee in present case, cannot be doubted. We find substance in the submission of Ld. AR that the investors companies i.e. 1. Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd (former Name: Rea....