ORDER 

Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad dated 29.3.2016 passed for the Asstt.Year 2012-13.

2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - they are descriptive and argumentative in nature, though subsequently, the assessee has filed concise grounds of appeal also. In brief, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.36,33,000/- which was added by the AO on the ground that share application and share premium money received by the assessee is unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company has filed its return of income on 29.9.2012 declaring total income at Rs.30,162/-. The case of the assessee was selected for the scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that the assessee had issued share capital of Rs.2,73,330/- (27,330 nos. of face value of Rs.10/- each) during the year under consideration. The company has also received share premium of Rs.38,26,200/- (at the rate of Rs.140/- per share). The AO has compiled the details of all share applicants on page no.3 of the assessment order, which reads as under:

Details of Increase in Share Capital

4. He noticed their income as under:

S. No. Name Return of Gross income income

5. After a detailed analysis, and in light of various authoritative pronouncements, the ld.AO has arrived at a conclusion that it was not a genuine transaction. Share applicants were not credit- worthy except Shri Hasumukh Barot HUF. He made addition of Rs.36,33,000/- out of the total. He did not make addition qua share application money received from Shri Hasumukh Barot HUF amounting to Rs.4,66,500/-. Rest of the amounts received as share application as well as share premium has been treated as unexplained cash credit. Appeal to the First Appellate Authority did not bring any relief to the assessee.

6. Before me, ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated contentions as were raised before the ld.Revenue authorities. She submitted that confirmation was given from all the share applicants; copy of their income tax returns were given; in order to prove their identity PAN card, motor driving licence; copy of the share application forms were produced; copy of share certificate allotted to the applicants were produced; copy of communication given to the Registrar of Companies showing allotment of shares was produced before the AO; all the applicants are income-tax assessees; they are individuals, hence the assessee has discharged onus cast upon it by virtue of section 68. Only lapse at the end of the assessee is that it failed to produce share applicants before the AO. According to the ld.counsel for the assessee, this is not such a fatal circumstance, which would amount to rejection of all other evidence