TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,575 added by the AO under s. 68 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that the restaurant was running in loss and the assessee was not able to explain the sources of cash credit? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that creditworthiness of shareholders was not to be established by applying ratio of Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1993) 113 CTR (Del) (FB) 472: (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB)? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the shareholders. It is seen from the paper book that affidavits, confirmation letters and replies were placed before the authorities below, especially before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, there is no substance in contending that the source of credit amounting to Rs. 8,24,000 remains unexplained. The fact that the assessee is incorporated under the Companies Act, is not disputed. The names of the parties purchasing the shares with the amount subscribed were furnished before the AO and the same is reproduced in the paper book. The particulars contained relevant details for such investments. However, the AO expected the assessee to produce more evidence. Of course, the AO would be entitled to enquire and it would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision is based on these facts. This being a finding on facts, there is no referable question of law arises as claimed by the assessee. 5. Question No. 4 relates to allowing the assessee to raise additional grounds in appeal before the Tribunal. This issue finds place in paras 13 to 17 of the order of this Tribunal. The assessee sought permission to raise additional grounds on the basis of the decision of the apex Court in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 136 CTR (SC) 246 : (1997) 223 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it has been held that "the hotel building is a tool of assessee s trading activity and is to be treated as plant for the purpose of depreciation under s. 32 of the IT Act". This legal position was not in existence at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
