TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,99,99,680/- made by the Assessing office on account of share capital and share premium received from M/s Dallas Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Monarch Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd, by the assessee company as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the IT. Act without taking cognizance of the facts substantiated by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CJT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts that the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2008-09 has not been accepted by the department and filed the petition for Special Leave to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the AO the valuation report justifying the valuation of shares. However, the AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and treated the entire share capital and share premium as non genuine and added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the AO has made addition under section 68 of the Act and not under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that in respect of excess premium received by the private limited company can be made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act from A.Y. 2013-14 only. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has even filed valuation report as per DCF....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been held that no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained investments where the assessee furnished before the AO the evidences to prove identity of the investors. The Ld. CIT(A) also followed the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom-HC) wherein it has been held that if the share application is received by the assessee from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO then the department can proceed against them and if necessary to reopen their individual assessments. The Ld. CIT(A) also followed the decision of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat addition on for excess share premium received by a private limited company can be made from AY 2013-14 u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. We also find merit in the finding of the Ld CIT(A) that prior to A Y 2013-14 there is no onus on the assessee to justify basis of premium on which shares are issued after relying upon the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Green Infra Ltd.[2017] 392 ITR 7(Bom.). We noted that coordinate bench in case of Singhal General Traders (P) Ltd. (Supra) relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Apeak Infotech [2017] 88 taxmann.com 695/397 ITR 148 (Bom.), held as under:- "14. From the above decision of honourable jurisdictional High Court it is abundantly c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of investors M/s Dallas Impex Pvt Ltd and M/s. Monarch Infraprojects Pvt Ltd. ● Financial statements of M/s Dallas Impex Pvt Ltd and M/s. Monarch Infraprojects Pvt Ltd along with Ledger Confirmation ● Valuation Report ● Copy of Bank statement of M/s Dallas Impex Pvt Ltd and M/s. Monarch Infraprojects Pvt Ltd. showing the investments made in share capital. The authorities below have not conducted any enquiry or investigation to dislodge the above documentary evidences submitted by the assessee. The reliance on the decision of Apex Court in case of NRA Iron & Steel P. Ltd. (412 ITR 161)(SC) by the DR is also not applicable in this case as we find that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1st April, 2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduce to proviso to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced states that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding ....