IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES: "A" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI AD JAIN, JM AND
SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M.
ITA No:4424/Del/2010
Assessment Year : - 2007-08
ITO, Ward 1(2) vs. M/s Accord Metal India P.Ltd.
New Delhi WZ-1661, Nangal Raya
New Delhi 110 046
PAN: : AAECA 2141 D
AND
C.O. No. 193/Delhi/2011
(In ITA no.4424/Del/2010)
Assessment Year: 2007-08
M/s Accord Metal (I) P.Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)
New Delhi New Delhi
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Pirthilal, Sr.D.R.
Respondent by : Shri K.C.Singhal, Adv. & Charitra Gupta, C.A.
ORDER
PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of
the Ld.CIT(A) dt.17.8.2010 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2007-08.
The Cross Objection is filed by the assessee.
2
2. The sole issue in dispute is an addition made under Section 68 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the share application money received by the
assessee from six companies. The list is as follows.
Sl. Name Address No. of Amount
No. shares (Rs.)
1. Adequate Transport & 311, D-5, Avadh 1,00,000 10,00,000
Tours Ltd. Complex, Delhi
2. CJ Exim P.Ltd. C-74, Kirti nagar 3,00,000 30,00,000
Delhi
3. Lifeline HF 311, D5, Avadh 1,20,000 12,00,000
Development Co.Ltd. Complex Delhi
4. Standard Air Travel E-10, B Jawahar 1,20,000 12,00,000
Services P.Ltd. park, Laxmi nagar,
Delhi 92
5. Grain Tech Engineers 4/9, Bhola Nath 10,00,000
P.Ltd. (share nagar, Shahdara,
application money) Delhi
6. Anni Shoes P.Ltd. H 23, Double 10,00,000
(Share application storey, Lajpat
money) nagar, New Delhi
3. We have heard Mr.Pirthilal, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue
and Mr KC Singhal, Advocate on behalf of the assessee.
4. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
case, on perusal of the relevant material on record and various case laws
cited, we hold as follows.:-
5. Both the parties have relied upon a number of case laws in their
support. Before we dwelve into the issue as to which case law applies, to
the facts, we consider the type of evidences that have been produced by
the assessee. These are as follows:-
3
i. Copies of Certificate of Incorporation of share applicant companies;
ii. Copies of share application forms from all parties;
iii. Copies of respective Board resolutions for subscribing to shares of
assessee company;
iv. Complete details of share applicant companies available with ROC;
v. Copies of returns in form no.2 filed with ROC informing the allotment
of shares to share applicant companies;
vi. Confirmation of account from all parties;
vii. Independent confirmations from parties;
viii. Affidavits of the Directors of all parties;
ix. Copy of ITR along with PAN of all parties relating to Assessment Year
2007-08;
x. Latest copies of ItRs i.e. Assessment Year 2009-10 of share applicants
showing same address;
xi. Copy of Balance sheet of all parties as on 31.3.2007;
xii. copy of bank account of the assessee evidencing the payments by
cheques;
xiii. copies of bank account of share applicants as supporting evidence of
payment from their respective bank accounts to the account of the
assessee company;
Letter dt. 25.6.2010 to the ITO requesting to make enquiry regarding
share applicants through their respective ITOs;
Copies of letters directly written by the share applicants to the ITO
confirming their addresses.
6. On perusal of these evidences, we conclude that the First Appellate
Authority was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was wrong in
ignoring the evidences filed by the assessee such as copy of income tax
returns containing PAN numbers, ROC Certificates, Bank Statements
etc. as these prove the identity of the investing companies. He was right
in holding that once the identity of the investing company stands proved,
then no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CIT vs. Lovely Exports P.Ltd. 216 CTR (SC) 195. The argument of the
Ld.D.R. that this judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court is not binding as
4
it is a dismissal of an SLP, is against the proposition laid down by the
Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment
P.Ltd. 330 ITR 298 (Delhi). As we have applied the ratio laid down by the
Apex Court, to the facts of the case, we do not deal with the numerous
Tribunal decisions and High Court decisions sought to be relied upon by
the Ld.D.R.
7. In view of the quality of evidence submitted by the assessee, in
support of the genuineness of share application money of the assessee,
and in view of the fact that the Assessing Officer does not have any
material or evidence to disprove the claims made by the assessee, we
dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue.
8. Coming to the Cross Objection the same is dismissed as `not
pressed'
9. In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection by
the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th September,2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.D. JAIN) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: the 17th September, 2012
*manga
5
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. Appellant; 2.Respondent; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.Guard File
By Order
Dy. Registrar
1. Date of Dictation:
2. Draft placed before the Author on:
3. Draft proposed and placed before Second Member on:
4. Draft discussed/approved by the Second Member on:
5. Approved draft came to Sr.P.S. on:
6. Date of Pronouncement :
7. File sent to Bench Clerk on :
8. Date on which file given to Head Clerk on:
9. Date of dispatching the Order on:
|
