Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Principal C.I.T. Udaipur vs M/S Shubh Mines Pvt. Ltd on 3 May, 2016
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR VS.
M/S. SHUBH MINES PVT. LTD.
(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.96/15)
1
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR
VS. M/S. SHUBH MINES PVT. LTD.
(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.96/15)
Dated:- 3.5.16.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant.
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 9.10.14 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Jodhpur, dated 30.6.14, deleting the addition of Rs.75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short "the Act"), vide assessment order dated 4.3.14 for the assessment year 2006-07, has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the assessee, a company, introduced share application money to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/- including the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- received allegedly taken from the entry provided namely, Moderate Credit Corporation Limited, Delhi, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. The AO observed that the assessee could not substantiate necessity for obtaining the huge share application money only after few months of promoting the company. The AO on the basis of the statements of one Shri PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR VS.
M/S. SHUBH MINES PVT. LTD.
(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.96/15) 2 Aseem Kumar Gupta, concluded that the money deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee company is bogus entry. Accordingly, treating the money received as aforesaid as the money belonging to the assessee company, the same was added to the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act.
3. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed by the CIT (A) vide order dated 30.6.14. The CIT (A) observed that investment has been made through regular banking channel and it has been refunded through regular banking channel when project of the company was dropped. The CIT (A) found that the investment and refund of the share application money are verifiable from the bank accounts of the appellant company. The statements of Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta recorded behind the back of the company, were not found reliable. That apart, the CIT (A) found that there is no evidence whether direct or indirect to prove that any cash or unaccounted money had either flown from the assessee company to the share applicant company at the time of investment or from share applicant company to the assessee company at the time of refund. Accordingly, the addition made was ordered to be deleted.
4. Aggrieved by the appellate order, an appeal preferred by the Revenue before the ITAT, stands dismissed by the order PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR VS.
M/S. SHUBH MINES PVT. LTD.
(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.96/15) 3 impugned. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that this is a case of bogus entry recorded as share capital money. Learned counsel submitted that relying upon the survey conducted in third party's case and the statements of Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta, the addition made by the AO was absolutely justified. Learned counsel submitted that the ITAT has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee could not substantiate its necessity for obtaining huge share application money only after a few months of promoting the company.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. A bare perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has made the addition on suspicion which is based on the statements of third party Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta, admittedly, recorded in the back of the assessee. It has come on record that the share application money of Rs.50,00,000/- was received from Moderate Credit Corporation Ltd., a listed company. It is not disputed before this court that the investment made was received by account payee cheque and the same was refunded by an account payee cheque when the company dropped its project. In the considered opinion of this court, in absence of any cogent evidence on record establishing that the money shown to PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR VS.
M/S. SHUBH MINES PVT. LTD.
(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.96/15) 4 have received as share application money, was as a matter of fact, unaccounted money belonging to the assessee company, the finding arrived at by the AO, which is based on suspicion, has rightly been held not sustainable in the eyes of law. Suffice it to say that the finding arrived at by the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, which remains a finding of fact, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse.
8. In view of the discussion abvoe, in our considered opinion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in the present appeal.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/