TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, "Act") challenging the composite order dated 21st August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA Nos. 02/Del/2009 and 03/Del/2009, for the Assessment Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 respectively. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition of ' 32,00,00/- made by the Assessing Officer (in short, "AO") under Section 68 of the Act. Mr. Sabharwal further submitted that the Tribunal had deleted the said addition even though the primary onus had not been discharged by the respondent-assessee. 3. However, upon a perusal of the file, we find that the said addition was deleted by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has confirmed that all these persons are regular income tax assesses and has also not brought anything on record to dispute their creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions, the conclusion drawn by him to treat the amount of share application money as unexplained income of the appellant does not appear to be justified. In this regard, reliance is placed on the recent decision of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (supra), CIT Vs. Divine Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (supra), CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Financial Services (supra) and other similar judicial pronouncements. Since in the first two cases, the SLP of the department has also been dismissed by the Apex Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer had not further made any enquiries. The Assessing Officer had also not brought any material to prove the contrary. The Assessing Officer had also not given opportunity to cross-examine Shri D.K. Gupta on whose statement the Assessing Officer had relied upon that the assessee had received accommodation entries and the parties subscribed the share application money were not genuine. In the recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR (SC) 195, the question to be decided before their Lordships was: "Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" While answering to the above question, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
