Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer, Ajmer v. M/S Samapran Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., D

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 137/2018 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer, Ajmer ----Appellant Versus M/s Samapran Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., D-31, Basement BTM, PurRoad, Bhilwara ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr.K.K.Bissa, Adv. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA 10/08/2018 Order The present appeal is preferred challenging the deletions ofadditions made by the assessing officer by the learned ITAT videorder dated 08.12.2017. The assessee was asked to prove genuineness of thetransactions shown in the form of share application money. Theassessee filed evidence to show of the companies from which hewas receiving share company money. The said companies wereoperated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. The Assessing Authorityfound that there was no genuine business being carried out by thecompanies run by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Accordingly, A.O.treated the amount of Rs.1,87,00,000/- as unexplained income.This is borne out from the fact that Shri Praveen Kumar Jain hadaccepted cash from the Assessee Company and after deducting hiscommission was issued the cheque for the amount as per therequirement of the Assessee Company. Thus, the decision of the Tribunal deleting the addition made on account of unexplainedcredit and unexplained expenditure cannot be accepted. Further,the Company did not indulge in physical real trading activities. Inthe absence of any such evidence of real trading concern, theywere mere paper Company which were engaged in business forproviding accommodation entries etc. Therefore, it requiredconsideration as to whether the ITAT was justified in confirmingthe order of CIT deleting the addition on account of bogus shareapplication money of the assessee. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and goingthrough the various orders passed by the authorities concerned,we find that A.O. had made additions merely on the statement ofShri Praveen Kumar and Shri Uttam Singh Hinger, whereas, theyhave already retracted from the statement by way of specificaffidavits filed by them. On the other hand, no other evidence wasproduced by the appellant herein to show that cash was paid bythe Company to Shri Praveen Kumar Jain or any other person foraccommodating the entries. In these circumstances, we find that the assessee succeededin proving its identity and bonafide of the shares and thetransactions. Thus, it being a pure question of fact, we find noreason to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed accordingly. (DINESH MEHTA),J (NIRMALJIT KAUR),J