TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 22nd December, 1994 passed by the learned CIT(A)-IV, Baroda. The only point of dispute as projected in the various grounds of appeal is that the Departmental Authorities have wrongly made an addition of Rs. 2,12,000 on account of alleged unexplained investment in shares of the assessee-company in the names of the following persons : 1.Shri Bhupesh C. ParikhRs. 50,000 2.Shri Ramesh C. ParikhR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required the assessee to furnish the names and addresses of all the persons who held shares of the assessee-company having the face value exceeding Rs. 20,000 and the assessee complied with the requirements of the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that it appears that the Assessing Officer wrote letters to the above referred 8 parties to obtain a confirmation from them in respect of investments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee-company were not genuine, the amount could not be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee-company. The Tribunal having cancelled CIT s order under section 263 whereby the assessment was set aside on the ground that Assessing Officer had accepted the genuineness of share capital without making enquiries, no question of law arises." Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
