|COURT:||Delhi High Court|
|CORAM:||Najmi Waziri J, Ravindra Bhat J|
|CATCH WORDS:||bogus share capital|
|DATE:||March 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||May 20, 2017 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|Bogus share capital: Fact that the investigation wing’s report alleged that the assessee was beneficiary to bogus transactions and that the identity of shareholders, genuineness etc was suspect is not sufficient. The AO is bound to conduct scrutiny of documents produced by the assessee and cannot rest content by placing reliance on the report of the investigation wing|
(i) It is argued by the Revenue that the ITAT should have taken appropriate steps and remitted the matter, not merely confirming the CIT(A)’s opinion since the Investigation Wing’s report confirmed unequivocally that the assessee was beneficiary to bogus transactions whereby the genuineness of identity of the shareholders, the genuineness and identity of the share applicants and the genuineness of transactions was suspect.
(ii) This Court notices that the assessee had provided several documents that could have showed light into whether truly the transactions were genuine. It was not a case where the share applicants are merely provided confirmation letters. They had provided their particulars, PAN details, assessment particulars, mode of payment for share application money, i.e. through banks, bank statements, cheque numbers in question, copies of minutes of resolutions authorizing the applications, copies of balance sheets, profit and loss accounts for the year under consideration and even bank statements showing the source of payments made by the companies to the assessee as well as their master debt with ROC particulars. The AO strangely failed to conduct any scrutiny of documents and rested content by placing reliance merely on a report of the Investigation Wing. This reveals spectacular disregard to an AO’s duties in the remand proceedings which the Revenue seeks to inflict upon the assessee in this case. No substantial question of law arises.