Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of unsecured loans by observing that the alleged lender company M/s Competent Securities Pvt. Ltd. is not shell company without considering the financial statements of this company.

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of unsecured loans allegedly obtained from M/s Competent Securities Pvt. Ltd. merely for the reason that evidences in the form of statement on oath of the relevant entry operators were not available on record.

Allegation of shell companies without material In the light of submission, as aforesaid, it was submitted that the allegation pertaining to that the investments were received from shell companies is without basis, material, evidence and purely based on surmises, conjectures, irrelevant material. No any positive material was brought on record to show that these Investor Companies are shell company. The company is registered company under the Companies Act and is having an independent identity under the Companies Law.

Therefore the Investor Company cannot be alleged as Shell Company without having any corroborative evidences and the same are genuine company having genuine affairs. Assessment of the investor company was completed u/s 143(3) of I.Tax Act, and the AO of the investor company assessed the company as regular company- not as shell company. The ROC has also not categorized the investor company as "

shell company" but categorized as "Active" company "

33 ITA 1121, 1189 & 1052/JP/2018_ M/s Rajasthan Cable Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT Non production of directors for personal appearance before the Assessing Officer.

Further to submissions made above, the crux of the allegation and basis of the addition as made out by the Ld. AO is that since Assessee could not produce Directors of the Investor Company, which proves that this Company is "Shell" Company and all the investment made by this Company fall under the unexplained credit of the Assessee. In this respect, at the outset it is submitted that it is a unique theory propounded by Ld. AO without having any force of law. Ld. AO has made this obligation mandatory beyond the provisions of the Section-68 by expanding the onus on the Assessee, beyond the expectations of Parliament. The assessee has no statutory power to enforce the personal presence of the parties. If power to call the witness and examine him are not exercised judicially than the deposit cannot be considered as undisclosed income. Reliance is placed on the following decisions.