M/S. GALGOTIA PRINTERS & PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Noida order dt. 29.9.2014 pertaining to the A.Y. 2010-11.

1.1. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing ground no.2. Thus ground no.2 is dismissed as ‘ not pressed’ .

1.2. Ground nos. 1, 4 and 5 are general in nature. This leaves us with ground no.3. which reads as follows.

“3. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.15 lakhs on account of share capital and share premium money received without there being any corroborating material on record.”

share premium was received from: (a) M/s Shubham Finstock Pvt.Ltd., (b) Mohit Consultants Pvt.Ltd. and (c ) DPA Finvest Services Ltd. Based on statement of Mrs. Tarun Goel, the AO made an addition of Rs.15 lakhs though the assessee filed confirmation letters before the A.O. On appeal the First Appellate Authority confirmed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us.

3.1. He further argued that, as the assessee has given confirmation letters, the burden that lay on it, has been discharged and hence the addition should be quashed.

3.2. The Ld.Sr.D.R. on the other hand relied on the order of the A.O. as well as the Ld.CIT(A).

4.1. The assessee has contended before the First Appellate Authority that, none of the three companies, from whom share capital along with share premium was raised during the year, were managed or controlled by Mr.Tarun Goel. It was further contended that, the A.O. has not found fault with the documentary evidences filed by the assessee, in support of the genuineness of the share capital along with share premium, raised during the year.

Galgotia Printers & Publishers P.Ltd.

4.2. The Ld. First Appellate Authority has not controverted the statement of the assessee. He confirmed the order of the A.O. merely based on the statement made by one Mr.Tarun Goel and also on the basis of modus operandi, generally adopted by various persons who take accommodation entries. Such an order of the First Appellate Authority cannot be sustained as no evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that this assessee has adopted such modus operandi.

4.3. Be it as it may, the assessee company has received share application money at a huge premium. On query from the Bench, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee could not give any possible explanation, justifying the huge share premium. Thus, to afford an opportunity to the assessee, I deem it fair and proper to set aside the matter to the AO, who shall verify the contention of the assessee that, these three companies from whom share applications were received, do not belong to Tarun Goel Group of Companies.

4.4. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th October, 2015.