Full Text
Translation output
-----------.
% 02.08.2011
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for the Revenue
Mr. V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate for the Respondent
+ITA No. 553/2011
19#
Respondent/Assessee is a private limited company and filed its return for the assessment year 2006-2007. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had issued a share capital which was subscribed, amongst
9 companies, as share applicants and the total shares alleged to have been issued were to the tune of Rs. 6o lakhs.
According to the Assessing Officer, the genmneness and credit worthiness of these could not be proved and thus, he made an addition of
Rs. 6o lakhs by creating as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that sufficient documentary evidence was produced by the assessee showing the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The order of the
CIT(A) has been affirmed by the !TAT.
We find from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee had filed the following details:-
"* Complete name and address ofshare applicants.
* Confirmation ofshare applicants.
* Copy of Income Tax Returns of share applicants
2011:DHC:14747-DB
* Copy of bank statement of share applicants from which they made the investment in the shares of company.
* Copy of these certificate of incorporation issued by
% 02.08.2011
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for the Revenue
Mr. V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate for the Respondent
+ITA No. 553/2011
19#
Respondent/Assessee is a private limited company and filed its return for the assessment year 2006-2007. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had issued a share capital which was subscribed, amongst
9 companies, as share applicants and the total shares alleged to have been issued were to the tune of Rs. 6o lakhs.
According to the Assessing Officer, the genmneness and credit worthiness of these could not be proved and thus, he made an addition of
Rs. 6o lakhs by creating as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that sufficient documentary evidence was produced by the assessee showing the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The order of the
CIT(A) has been affirmed by the !TAT.
We find from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee had filed the following details:-
"* Complete name and address ofshare applicants.
* Confirmation ofshare applicants.
* Copy of Income Tax Returns of share applicants
2011:DHC:14747-DB
* Copy of bank statement of share applicants from which they made the investment in the shares of company.
* Copy of these certificate of incorporation issued by
* Copy of their affidavit confirming their investments in the company.
* Copy of their last audited balance sheet at the time of their making investments in the company."
The reason for deleting the addition can be traced in the discussion contained in para 6 ofthe order ofthe Tribunal which reads as under:-
"6. Assessing Officer has also accepted this fact that in response to his query, share applicants have furnished requisite details. The addition has been made mainly for the two reasons. The first reason assigned by the
Assessing Officer is that principal officer of the share applicant company did not appear before him in response to the notice. The second reason assigned by the Assessing Officer is that on perusal of bank statement of the share applicant, it reveals that huge money was transferred in their accounts from other companies before issuance of cheques for allotment of shares. In our opinion, both these reasons are not sufficient for making the addition in the hands of assessee. Firstly, the Assessing Officer has not conclusively held that money transfer in the alleged share applicant's accounts was from the assessee's account or it was a cash deposit. If those concerns have procured the money then they could be asked to explain the source. How it can be relevant for treating the share application money received by the assessee as bogus.
The assessee has furnished the addresses of the share
,..,,-I applicants as well as confirmation. It is the Assessing
Officer who could have procured the presence of the share applicants by using his powers."
We are of the opinion that the assessee has discharged the initial onus caste upon it by furnishing the requisite documents and therefore, having regard to the
* Copy of their last audited balance sheet at the time of their making investments in the company."
The reason for deleting the addition can be traced in the discussion contained in para 6 ofthe order ofthe Tribunal which reads as under:-
"6. Assessing Officer has also accepted this fact that in response to his query, share applicants have furnished requisite details. The addition has been made mainly for the two reasons. The first reason assigned by the
Assessing Officer is that principal officer of the share applicant company did not appear before him in response to the notice. The second reason assigned by the Assessing Officer is that on perusal of bank statement of the share applicant, it reveals that huge money was transferred in their accounts from other companies before issuance of cheques for allotment of shares. In our opinion, both these reasons are not sufficient for making the addition in the hands of assessee. Firstly, the Assessing Officer has not conclusively held that money transfer in the alleged share applicant's accounts was from the assessee's account or it was a cash deposit. If those concerns have procured the money then they could be asked to explain the source. How it can be relevant for treating the share application money received by the assessee as bogus.
The assessee has furnished the addresses of the share
,..,,-I applicants as well as confirmation. It is the Assessing
Officer who could have procured the presence of the share applicants by using his powers."
We are of the opinion that the assessee has discharged the initial onus caste upon it by furnishing the requisite documents and therefore, having regard to the
JUDGMENT
of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lovely
Exports 216 CTR 195, the Tribunal rightly confirmed the deletion. No question oflaw arises.
Dismissed.
AUGUST 02, 2011 sd
Exports 216 CTR 195, the Tribunal rightly confirmed the deletion. No question oflaw arises.
Dismissed.
AUGUST 02, 2011 sd