UNICORN IMPEX LTD.,MALERKOTLA vs. DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 163/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 July 2018AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the identity and creditworthiness of most of the share applicants were proved, considering their income and savings. For the deceased shareholder, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further examination with legal heirs.

What were the facts?

The assessee company challenged the addition of Rs. 285,000 made on account of share capital. The Assessing Officer had sought information under section 133(6) from the shareholders, and most confirmed their investments, with one shareholder having passed away.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on account of share capital were justified when shareholders confirmed their investments and provided documentary evidence of their creditworthiness and genuineness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri. Atul Goyal
For Respondent: Shri. Yoginder Mittal
Hearing: 12/07/2018Pronounced: 24/07/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.163/Chd/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07

M/s Unicorn Impex Ltd. Vs. The DCIT Defense Colony, C-4, Ludhiana Nabha Road, Malerkotla

PAN No. AAACU4062D

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri. Atul Goyal Revenue By : Shri. Yoginder Mittal

Date of hearing : 12/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24/07/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of

the Ld. CIT(A)-2 dt. 29/09/2017.

2.

In the present appeal the Assessee has raised the following grounds:

1.

Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding an addition of Rs. 285000/- made by five share holders in shares of the assessee company. All these five persons except one Late Sh. Parminder Kumar have confirmed their respective share investment in response to information sought under provisions of section 133(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. Late Sh. Parminder Kumar could not furnish information under section 133(6) due to his sad demise on 08/01/2008. 2. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate documentary evidence in support of investments in shares filed by the share holders.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT vide order dt.

29/12/2012 remanded the matter to examine the identity, creditworthiness and

genuinity of the share applicants. After examination and based on the Remand

Report of the Assessing Officer. The share application received by the following

persons have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).

Sl. Name Amount(in Rs.) Date of Investment No. 1. Mr. K.K. Pillai 60,000/- 19/12/2005 2. Mrs. Sudha Kumari w/o Mr. K.K. 50,000/- 19/12/2005 Pillai 3. Mrs. Nancy Goyal 50,000/- 06/01/2006 4. Mr. Nirmal Kumar 50,000/- 15/02/2006 5. Mrs. Parminder Kaur 75,000/ -

4.

Before us, the Ld. AR argued that :

4.1 Mr. K.K. Pillai -: They have duly submitted information as sought under

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was argued that the applicant has

been working in the Govt. of Kerala and retired in the year 2007 and that the

applicant was earning Rs. 85,000/- salary per month and the investments were

made out of the regular savings from his salary income.

4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the share holder on the have not been furnished.

4.3 We have gone through the documents placed before us, the identity, applicant was earning Rs. 85,000/- salary even 1/10th of the salary is deemed to

be the savings of the applicant, it can be well considered to be genuine.

5.

Mrs. Sudha Kumari w/o K.K. Pillai -: They have duly submitted information as

sought under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was argued that the

investments were made out of the regular savings and out of tuition income

and from her Stridhan.

5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the share holder on the have not been furnished.

5.2 We have gone through the material placed before us, the identity, applicant’s investment of Rs. 50,000/- can be deemed to be the savings

considering the total facts on record.

6.

Nancy Goyal : They have duly submitted information as sought under

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was argued that the investments

were made out of the regular savings and from her Stridhan. It was argued that

her husband was working in hospital and assessed with ITO Ward-2, Malerkotla

from whom she receives regular money and the savings were invested in the

shares.

6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the share holder on the have not been furnished.

6.2 We have gone through the material placed before us, the identity, applicant’s investment of Rs. 50,000/- can be deemed to be the savings

considering the total facts on record.

7.

Mr. Nirmal Kumar: They have duly submitted information as sought under

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was argued that the investments

were made out of the gift received on 01/12/2005 by debiting the capital

account of Arjun Das Dhiman, father of the applicant in the books of his

proprietary concern in M/s S.R. Dhiman Industries, the copy of the capital

account of the applicant’s father has been submitted before the lower

authorities.

7.1 The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the share holder on the have not been furnished.

7.2 We have gone through the material placed before us, the identity, applicant’s investment of Rs. 50,000/- in shares can be regarded as received

from his father as gift.

8.

Shri. Parminder Kumar :- It was argued that the applicant has expired on

08/01/2008 the matter is being sent back to the file of Assessing Officer with the

direction to the assessee to submit the relevant documents after collecting

them from the legal heirs.

9.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and

after duly considering the background and the financial affairs of the

applicants, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) from serial no.1 to 4 of the

above mentioned table is hereby ordered to be deleted.

10.

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 24/07/2018 AG Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →