TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... us with its cross-objections. 2. We shall first take up the appeal of the Revenue, wherein it has challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- by the CIT(A) as made by the AO towards bogus share application money as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.10.2007 declaring total income at 'Nil', which was processed u/s. 143(1) on 26.03.2009. Thereafter, the AO received information from DDIT (Inv)-III(2), Mumbai, that the assessee is beneficiary of hawala accommodation entries in the form of share application money, which came to the notice of the department during the Search & Seizure action on Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and its associate concern ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rties mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 8. The AO held that these concerns were operated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, who is an alleged hawala operator providing accommodation entries in the form of share application money, Long term capital gain and bogus unsecured loans, bogus sales etc., and, therefore, show cause notice was issued to the assessee. Finally the AO treated the share application money amounting to Rs 2,10,00,000/- received from the eight parties as non-genuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee has filed all necessary evidences in the form of copies of Certificate of incorporation, Mem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, PAN, share allotment forms etc., to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors However, the AO has not bothered to issue notice u/s. 133(6) and has merely relied on the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. The learned AR also submitted that Shri Praven Kumar Jain, whose statement was primarily made the basis for making the addition was neither the share holder nor the Director in the investor companies. Moreover, the statement by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain has been retracted and, thus, has no evidentiary value. The learned AR submitted that no cross examination of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain was allowed to the assessee despite being specifically requested. Finally, the AR submitted that the issue being covered in favour of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Ambee Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (supra), wherein the five investors are common as has been stated in para no.3 of the said order. The operative part of the said order is reproduced below: 8. We have gone through the assessment order and the order of CIT(A) and noted that the AO noticed from the Bank Account submitted by the assessee that these are non-genuine transactions. The entire basis of the AO was on the investigation done by the office of DGIT Investigation, Mumbai. From the above assessment order, it is clear that the AO has not made any enquiry or....