THE facts of the case are on a Search & seizure operations carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 18-3-02 notice u/s 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961, served on the assessee it was alleged that the assessee that a sum of Rs.54,45,000/ – which was received by the assessee from its sister concern M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, as application money was nothing but the assessee company’s own money which was brought into the books in the garb of application money and the whole transaction was managed, sham and was a deliberate arrangement to subvert the interest of revenue.It was also alleged that the that M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd was a company formed by the Aerens group just as a name lender, which has not declared any profit nor shown any assets but issued shares to various other companies charging a hefty premium. M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. is only a vehicle for channeling unaccounted money earned by the group company.
An appeal filed before the tribunal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 21-3-2005 relating to block period 1-4-95 to 18-3-2002, on the ground that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.54,50,000/ -to the taxable income, on account of undisclosed income shown in the garb of share application money.
The tribunal observed,
1. The amount of Rs.54, 50, 000/-received by the assessee company, duly reflected in the books of account of the assessee company for F.Y. 2001-02 and hence, could not be added as “undisclosed income” of the assessee company. The fact that the amount was reflected in the books of account has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer either.”
2. That there is no discovery of any undisclosed income in this case as a result of search and seizure which can be assessed u/s 158BC. The AO has not referred to any material or document found during
search from the appellant which would establish that the appellant had undisclosed income found during search.
3.The provisions of Section 158BC are limited only to what is found during search. In this case what has been found during search enumerated above and not a single reference has been made to those documents found, which will show that what has been declared earlier is not correct. It is clear that no material or evidence was found during the course of search to show that the investment in the share application money was out of assessee’s own undisclosed income.
4. The CIT(Appeals) has correctly appreciated the facts and the legal provisions. Therefore, the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Appeals) on the issue in question do not call for any interference was upheld.
Hence the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.