TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent: Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant appeal is preferred by the appellant/assessee against the impugned order dated 25.9.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) thereby dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Though there were three issues before the Tribunal, the present appeal is confined only to one issue, viz., addition of ₹ 22.50 lacs Section 68 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on account of purported share capital contributed by eight shareholders holding that the assessee has not been able to substantiate their capacity to give money or the genuineness of transaction. 2. The brief fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid replies/documents, the AO made an addition of Rs.25,50,000/- towards addition in share capital during the year and passed the assessment order on 30.4.2007. 3. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), wherein the CIT (A) held that the addition be made on account of introduction of share capital which was found credited during the impugned year i.e. Assessment Year 2005-06 and the share capital which was received in earlier years cannot be added in the impugned year. 4. The assessee once again preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT (A). The Tribunal vide impugned order affirmed the order of the CIT (A) on this issue. Thereafter, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the three Authorities below. Faced with these findings, the only contention which could be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that Shri Moolchand Nirmal and Mr. Yogesh Saxena were not allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant even when specific opportunities were sought for. We may note that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment had categorically observed that no such cross-examination was sought for by the assessee and the learned counsel for the assessee argued that this was factually wrong observation, as vide communication dated 02.2.2007, the assessee had made a specific request for summoning the investors under Section 131 of the Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we had called for the original re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
