2026 (5) TMI 898

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 03.03.2014 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle-03, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs 50,00,000 towards share application money under section 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that this appeal was originally dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 9.8.2019. Later the same was recalled vide MA No. 92/Del/2020 dated 10.10.2023 wherein the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs 300,69 lacs as on 31.3.2010 and Rs 345.95 lacs as on 31.3.2011. The source of investment of Investor Company was explained to have emanated out of receipt of loans and advances by the investor company and reinvesting in assessee company. The Learned AO noted that assessee company is not doing any genuine business; that the bank statement of investor had been furnished only for part of the period ; that on perusal of the bank statement of investor, on normal days, the investor company was only having nominal bank balance and concluded that investor company does not have own funds to make investment of Rs 50 lacs in assessee company. 5. The assessee company submitted that the investor company is duly assessed to income tax, furnished c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plicable to the facts of the instant case before us. 7. With regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd reported in 412 ITR 161 (SC), we find that in that case, pursuant to the enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer, it revealed that in several cases the investor companies were found to be even non-existent and hence identity of the investor companies were not proved by that assessee. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to make the observations against that assessee. This decision is factually distinguishable with that of the assessee's instant case before us in view of the fact that investor company is duly assessed to tax and assessee had also placed....