Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.12 It is evident from the bank statements o f the 2 layer and 3r d laye r companies/ entities that they were not engaged in any regular business activity. Their bank sta te ments re flect huge credit which are immediately tra nsfe rre d to some or the other parties. This indicates that these parties do not have any profit- generating apparatus and co nsequent cre ditw orthiness to explain such huge inves tments .

3.13 Enquiries we re also made by the Investigation Wing Ko lkata in respect o f 2nd & 3d layer investo r co mpanies w hic h were found to be controlle d by Ko lkata based accommodatio n entry provide rs. In this connection, sta te ment of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Pandey was also recorde d, wherein he accepted that the companies in which he or his wife is director a re paper companies and these companies were used for the sole of purpose of accommodatio n e ntry o nly.

5.4 The conte ntio n of the appellant was not accepted by the AO. I n my considered view the AO has rightly no t accepted the re ply o f the appe llant. The appellant s imply stated that the to tal amount o f Rs . 80,00,000/- received on account of share application money is only by way of book entries but did not prov ide the name of the beneficiary. The appellant company did no t pro vide the details of the debit entries o f its bank account. T he appellant company k nows its affairs and its transactions. The appellant company knows the sources of the am ounts cre dited in its bank account. The appellant company also kno ws the be neficiaries in respect of debit entries in its bank acco unt. In such situation, to make things more clear and transparent, the appellant was required to provide the requis itio ned details to the AO to lend credence to its co ntentio n.

5.5 The AO has ri ghtly no ted that Priya Gold G roup is beneficiary of funds from AY 2013- 14 onwards and definitely was not beneficiary during the pe rio d rele vant to AY 2009-10. The appe llant company should have pro vide d details of beneficiary during the pe rio d relev ant to AY 2009-10 in suppo rt of its conte ntion. The appe llant company canno t shirk from its legal obligation to pro ve the identity and cre dit worthiness of the so called stare applicants and genuineness of transactions by adjudging itse lf as she ll comрапу.

5.9 It has been held in various judgments that the assessee must prove identity and cre ditworthiness of credito r and genuineness of transac tio n e .g. a s in Shankar I ndustr ies Vs. CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689, Nanak C handra Laxman Da s Vs. CIT (Cal) 140 ITR 151, Hari Chand Virender Paul Vs. CIT (P&H) 140 IT R 148, CIT Vs. BijuPatnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674, ITO Vs. Skyjet Aviatio n (P) L td. (ITAT, Ahd-TM) 71 I T D 95, CIT Vs . Precision F inance P. L td. (Cal) 208 ITR 465, Orie ntal Wire Indus trie s (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 131 ITR 688, Malabar Agric ultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Ker) 229 ITR 548, Roshan De Hatti Vs .