| The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 5348 (Raip-Trib) : (2022) 099 ITR (Trib) 0143 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 68
As failure on part of AO to call for the requisite information by issuing notices/letters under section 133(6) to the investor companies well within a reasonable time resulted to the delay in furnishing of the requisite reply by them, therefore, same by no means could be attributed either to assessee or to investor companies. Be that as it may, requisite details as were called for by AO vide his notices/letters issue under section 133(6) had been furnished by investor companies and the same duly substantiated their identity and creditworthiness, as well as genuineness of the transaction, which was neither rebutted by AO in the course of original assessment proceedings; nor in the remand proceedings, therefore, department without dislodging primary onus that was duly discharged by assessee could not have drawn adverse inferences as regards the transactions in question. Therefore, addition was deleted.
|
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 68 - Receipt of share capital/premium - Non-compliance to section 133(6) notices by investor companies
AO treated share application money/premium received by assessee company as unexplained credit under section 68 on the ground that notices issued under section 133(6) were not complied with by the investor companies; and the commission issued under section 131(1)(d) revealed that neither of the aforesaid companies were available at their respective addresses. Held: It is a matter of fact borne from record that notices under section 133(6) were issued by AO to the two investors companies, viz. (i) Neel Kamal Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.; and (ii) Chandrika Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. on 26-3-2015 and were dispatched through speed post only on 28-3-2015, as a result whereof the same were received by aforesaid companies only as on 3-4-2015. After having received the aforesaid notices both the said companies vide their respective letters dt. 4-4-2015 which were forwarded to AO through e-mail and speed post, furnished complete details as were called for by him. As failure on part of AO to call for the requisite information by issuing notices/letters under section 133(6) to the investor companies well within a reasonable time resulted to the delay in furnishing of the requisite reply by them, therefore, same by no means could be attributed either to assessee or to investor companies. Be that as it may, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that requisite details as were called for by AO vide his notices/letters issue under section 133(6) had been furnished by investor companies and the same duly substantiated their identity and creditworthiness, as well as genuineness of the transaction, which was neither rebutted by AO in the course of original assessment proceedings; nor in the remand proceedings, therefore, department without dislodging primary onus that was duly discharged by assessee could not have drawn adverse inferences as regards the transactions in question. Therefore, addition was deleted.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2012-13
IN THE ITAT, RAIPUR BENCH
RAVISH SOOD, J.M. & ARUN KHODPIA, A.M.
ITO v. Sharda Shree Agriculture & Developers (P). Ltd.
ITA No. 84/Rpr/2017
5 August, 2022
Assessee by : Nikhilesh Begani, CA
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|