Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 1285 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained Cash Credits u/s 68 - AO made the addition on money received from share applicants and commission paid because summons issued to parties in question were returned back as un-served - CIT(A) deleted such additions on the ground that assessee has submitted return of allotment of shares filed with ROC, Affidavits from the parties, confirmation of the parties, copies of bank accounts etc - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee in this case has duly submitted all the details to establish the identity of the parties, the income tax particulars in the form of PAN were also provided by the assessee. In the background of the above details, it can be said that assessee has submitted enough details to establish the identity of the parties. Assessing Officer has primarily relied upon the Report of the Investigation Wing which cannot conclusively prove that assessee own money was invested in the form of share application money. We place reliance of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision delivered in the case of COMMR. OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S LOVELY EXPORTS (PVT) LTD [2008 (1) TMI 575 - SC ORDER], where it was held that, if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. Further, reliance on COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV VERSUS M/S. DWARKADHISH INVESTMENT (P) LTD. AND M/S. DWARKADHISH CAPITAL (P) LTD. [2010 (8) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT] was made, where it was held that, just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the revenue the right to invoke section 68. One must not lose sight of the fact that it is the revenue which has all the power to trace any person. Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not to prove the source of source. On considering the facts of the present case and considering the orders made in aforementioned judgements, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold the same - Decision in favour of Assessee.
|