TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case, Ld, CIT(A) was justified in the deleting the addition of Rs.85,61,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer where no personal attendance was made by any director of the share allottee companies during the course of assessment proceedings and as such identity & creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transactions could not be verified. (3) That on the facts, the principles which has been laid down by the Hon'bleSuprement Court in the case of Pr. CIT(Central)-1, Kolkata vs NRA Iron & Steel Put. Ltd(412 ITR 161) suggests that "the assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/ premium to the satisfaction of the A.O., failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee". In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the assessee company has failed to do so other than submission of mere statements of various kinds. Thus, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in holding that the raised share capital was not the assessee's own income. (4) That on the facts, the principle which has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT(Central) -1, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led any petition for condonation of delay. We observe that the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) was received on November, 2020, whereas the appeal was filed on February, 2021, which is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Writ Petition vide order dated 10.01.2022, whereby the period of limitation is extended from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2020. Since the above period falls within the period as mentioned in the above order, the Revenue's appeal is deemed to have been filed within the due date. 4. The common issue raised by the Revenue in various grounds of appeal from ground Nos. 1 to 7 is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 85,61,00,000/- by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of share capital/ share premium being unexplained under section 68 of the Act. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 21.09.2012 showing total income of Rs. 7,818/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. In compliance to the said notice, Shri V.K. Jai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers, who invested in the share capital of the assessee- company have failed to comply the summons issued under section 131 of the Act and, therefore, necessary verification as to identity, creditworthiness of the subscribers and genuineness of the transactions could not be carried out. The ld. D.R. submitted that mere filing of the documents in respect of share subscribers would not per se proves the three ingredients as provided under section 68 of the Act. The ld. D.R. submitted that though the assessee has filed the requisite details, such as Master Data of the subscribers, reply to 133(6) notices issued, certificate of source of funds, copy of bank statements, allotment letters, Board Resolutions, share application forms, audited financial statements and copies of the assessment orders under section 143(3)/147 in the case of subscribers. However, the fact remains that these could not be verified on account of non-appearance of the Directors of the investor companies. The ld. D.R., therefore, prayed that since the three ingredients as provided under section 68 of the Act have not been satisfied, therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is incorrect and may be reversed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The ld. A.R. while referring to para 4.4 of the appellate order submitted that in the case of 36 share subscribers, their cases were either scrutinized under section 143(3) or under section 147 or their returned income have been accepted and thereafter the ld. A.R. referred to the profiles of the of the subscriber companies as discussed by the appellate authorities in the appellate order in the same paragraph. The ld. A.R. therefore, prayed that since the assessee has proved all the parameters as required under the Act, therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), which is otherwise a very speaking and reasoned one may kindly be upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 9. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the relevant material placed before us and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). We observe that the assessee has raised share application money from 36 subscribers and during the assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer has issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the subscribers, which were duly responded by furnishing the necessary evidences and also confirming the investments having been made in the assessee-company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tments in the assessee-company and also the percentage which the investment made in the assessee-company holds to be total net worth of the subscribers and also appended the observation that in case of 36 investors, their assessments were either framed under section 143(3)/147 or their returns of income have been accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer, Thereafter in para 4.4, the ld. CIT(Appeals) discussed the profiles and the assessment status of each subscriber company. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs .- Sagun Commercial (P) Limited (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that where the assessee has filed before the ld. Assessing Officer the evidences of Permanent Account Numbers, payment details of shareholding and other bank transactions relating to those payments and the ld. Assessing Officer failed to consider these documentary evidences produced by the assessee, then the addition cannot be made in the hands of assessee by upholding the order of the CIT(Appeals). Similarly the ld. CIT(Appeals) has discussed several decisions in the appellate order and finally recorded a finding ....