Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
We find that there is no dispute that the assessee has received share application money from six companies, out of which, from three companies assessee has received premium for sums aggregating to Rs.103,80,00,000/-. In the case of Ganesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Feelgood Creation Pvt. Ltd., and Beyond Management Pvt. Ltd. from whom the assessee has received share application money of Rs.1,79,60,000/- Rs.1,34,70,000/- and Rs.1,34,70,000/-, respectively has been accepted to be genuine. Assessing Officer has only disputed the other three companies as discussed above, merely because the assessee company has received huge premium from such parties. In so far as the initial onus cast upon the assessee for proving the nature and source of the share capital, the assessee had filed various documents.
One of the main allegation of the Assessing Officer is that the notices sent u/s.133(6) were not received on the given date for which it has been clarified before us that within a short span, Assessing Officer has sought lot of information during the period of one week from the parties situated outside Delhi. In fact, all the notices were ultimately duly complied with by these parties who have sent all the requisite details as required by the Assessing Officer in his notices u/s.133(6). Thus, there cannot be reason of compliance of the notices have been made beyond the dates specified by him and as his observation lose its relevance. In fact, these parties have submitted documents with the Assessing Officer directly to him in their replies in response to notice u/s 133(6).
Thus, the reason assigned by the Assessing Officer does not have much credence to dislodge the evidences filed by these parties to corroborate the assessee’s explanation and the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the nature and source of credit. Regarding various observations and allegation of the Assessing Officer, the ld. counsel has given a very detail rebuttal based on documents on record as incorporated above in the foregoing paragraphs. From bare perusal of the explanation duly supported by the documents, we find that whatever so called inquiry which was conducted by him has not lead to any iota of adverse material so as to hold that the transaction is not genuine. The Assessing Officer required the Directors/the representatives of the three companies which were produced before him, the same were duly complied with and not only they were produced but have also confirmed the transaction and given the required documents on the subsequent dates. Once these parties have directly confirmed the transaction with all the documents and the authorized representatives have duly appeared before the Assessing Officer, then without any substantial ground he has disbelieved on a very technical and whimsical reasons.
Here in this case, the investee companies are based outside Delhi and if he was not satisfied with the authorized representative sent by them, then at least he could not have issued a commission u/s.133(1)(d) to be examined by the local Income tax authority. Further, these authorized representative have adduced the document but nowhere Assessing Officer has pointed out what was lacking in such documents which was already submitted by these companies in reply to the notice u/s.133(6) and what extra he wanted to examine, has not been mentioned.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
