Loading judgment…
Facts
The case pertains to a reassessment initiated under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for the increase in paid-up capital and security premium. The Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee had obtained bogus accommodation entries for share capital from entities controlled by Shri S.K. Jain.
Held
The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities, noting that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to establish the genuineness of the transactions or the identity and creditworthiness of the investing entities. Consequently, the addition was upheld, as the grounds raised by the assessee lacked substance.
Key Issues
Whether the addition for increase in paid-up capital and security premium, arising from alleged bogus accommodation entries, was correctly sustained by the tax authorities.
Sections Cited
147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM : Heard and perused the record.
None has appeared for the assessee in spite of notices being issued repeatedly and the record shows earlier, Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate has appeared and sought adjournment. Notices have also been issued by e-mail. No more opportunity is justified.
Heard Ld. DR has supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below. It comes up that the reassessment order was passed u/s 147/148 of the Act on the basis of increase in paid up capital, by increase in security premium and the Ld. AO was satisfied that the equity shares were issued to bogus entities which have been transferred to their own entities.
The Ld.CIT(A) has sustained the addition holding that assessee had taken accommodation entries. As we go through the orders of Ld. Tax Authorities, we find that the Assessing Officer had examined the modus operandi adopted by Shri S.K. Jain and the entities controlled by him to provide bogus accommodation entries for introduction of share capital. There was no evidence on the part of the assessee to rebut and establish the genuineness of the transaction by proving identity and creditworthiness of the investing entities. The material on record requires no other opinion. The grounds raised have no substance. The appeal of assessee is dismissed.