Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

IT A No . 6 30 1 / Mu m/ 2 0 14 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Clt(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,37.00.000/- wade a1s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of share application money received by the appellant company Ay holding that the same are not genuine

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the LA. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of' Rs. 2,37,00.000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 without appreciating the fact that the appellant has proved the identit) and credit worthiness of the subscribers and genuineness of the transaction.

21. Reply by DacconImpex Pvt. Ltd. to CIT(A) dt. 12.11.2008 31

22. Reply by Maradona Holdings Pvt. Ltd. C1T(A) dt. 12/11/2008 32

23. Reply by MahasaktiVyapar Pvt. Ltd to CIT(A) dated 12/11/2008 33

24. Reply by Fidelity Marketing Pvt. Ltd. to CIT(A) dt. 12/1 1/2008 34

25. Reply by Sreedeb Commercial Pvt. Ld. to ClT(A) DT. 12/11/2008 35

26. Reply by NetscopeDealcomm Pvt. Ltd. to CIT(A) dt. 12/11/2008 36

34. Acknowledgment and Annexures of Deposition before ClT(A) dated 176-205 24/1 1/2008 in case of Fidelity Marketing Pvt. Ltd

6. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that during statement certain directors of these companies stated that the share application money invested by the respective companies is accommodation entry, were never confronted to the assessee till the stage of adjudication by the CIT(A). The entire basis of addition is only those statements and that the summon issued under section 131 of the Act sent through RPAD, return unserved. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that for FY 2005-06 the assessee filed complete details IT A No . 6 30 1 / Mu m/ 2 0 14 in respect of share application money by the application and not disputed by the AO. The learned counsel for the assessee also disputed that the enquiries made with the Kolkata parties or somebody who was available merely confirms that the survey team has resorted to take statements of care takers of the buildings or anyone found in the premises. He argued that such people like care takers cannot be considered as responsible persons of the share applicant companies who could have given such vital information for this purpose of having carried out the transaction with the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee further stated that the proper and complete records of the share application by way of share application form, board resolution, bank statements, balance sheet and P&L account, Memorandum and Article of association, IT returns, PAN Card and allotment letter of shares were submitted and the AO has nowhere denied this fact. These documents were again submitted vide letter dated 10-10-2008 and 17-10-2008 under Annexure-A10 volume C. The assessee now before us also filed details in its paper book three volumes consisting of pages 1-637. In term of the above, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that once these details are available, no addition under section 68 can be made without rejecting the information.