Case Law Details
ITO Vs. Ambika Metalchem Impex P. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
In the present case, we find that the assessee has duly discharged the initial onus of proving the identity of the investors, creditworthiness of the transactions and genuineness of the transactions. Notices issued u/s 133(6) have been responded to. In such a scenario, the onus to dislodge the assessee’s claim, in our opinion, was shifted back to Ld. AO and he was duty bound to investigate the case further. However, the facts on record nowhere establishes that such further inquiries / investigations have subsequently been conducted by Ld. AO in the present case. For the said proposition, we draw strength from the land mark case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [50 ITR 1] and Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938] as already cited in the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. Similar is the ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation [159 ITR 78]. It is trite law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures or surmises.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2009-10 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)- 10/ITO-5(1)(1)/482/2015-16 dated 18/11/2016 on following grounds of appeal :-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 84 lacs u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act on account of bogus share capital and share premium.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
