Tribunal held that though the assessee has submitted details and documents , the AO failed to carry out any further investigation to show that companies who provided loans and share application money were just paper companies. Tribunal further observed that the AO failed to call for details from the investor/lending companies which could be by way of summons
u/s. 131. The Tribunal provided with list of ways and means through which AO could have called for various details with regarding to the existence of investor/lending companies viz. details from MCA website or details of Directors of such companies, details from bankers with respect to any unusual transactions, etc. However, the AO failed to investigate the correct facts and concluded that such investor/lending companies are just paper companies. Thus, Tribunal concluded that the assessee has discharged the initial onus as per sec. 68 of the Act with respect to loan and share application money and that AO does not have any evidence to allege that such monies taken by the assessee are bogus in nature. Thus, Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) and deleted the whole addition made by the AO. (ITA No. 3223 & 3224/Del/2016).(AY. 2012-13, 2013-14)
ACIT v. Shyam Indus Power Solutions (P) Ltd. (2018) 62 ITR 512 512 (Delhi )( Trib.)
S. 68: Cash credits- Unsecured loan- Furnished names and addresses of concerned parties, their PAN and confirmation with bank account and their Income tax returns, and AO had not carried out any investigation to show that those companies did not exist but were paper companies- Addition cannot be made . [ S.131 ]