TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deposit through public notice and not privately and various depositors make the deposits, it is possible that at relevant time, the assessing company is not in a position to take the confirmation from each and every depositor. The deposits of those eight persons are nominal in nature when compared to the total deposits received by the assessee. Moreover, the information given in the application forms submitted by these depositors would have served the purpose and it cannot be said that the assessee did not discharge the onus. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No.660/2008,ITA No.599/2010 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2011 - MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, MR. JUSTICE M.L.MEHTA, JJ. Through Ms.P.L. Bansal, Advocate Through Mr.Ajay Vohra wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .18.00 lakhs, were added in the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The details of these persons as given by the Assessing Officer are as follows:- S.No. Name of the Depositors Amount (in Rs.) 1. Ms.Urmila Agarwal 1,00,000/- 2. Mr.Kapil Bihari Saxena 1,00,000/- 3. Ms.Geeta Devi Chauhan 70,000/- 4. Ms.Nishi Goel 50,000/- 5. Ms.Prabha Goel 50,000/- 6. Ms.Kavita Saxena 50,000/- 7. Ms.Vibha Saxena 50,000/- 8. Mr.Sandeep Kumar 50,000/- 9. Mr.Bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT restoring the addition to the tune of Rs.5.20 lakhs, which was deleted by the CIT (Appeals). 3. In this backdrop, we admit the appeal of the Revenue with the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.12.80 lakhs out of total addition of Rs.18 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act? 4. The appeal of the assessee is also admitted framing the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.5.20 lakhs on account of unexplained deposits under Section 68 of the Act? 5. Both the appeals ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the CIT (Appeal) came to the conclusion that basic information with regard to these deposits was made available to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, onus shifted on the Assessing Officer to probe the matter further, if he was not satisfied with the aforesaid details, by issuing summons to those parties and examining them giving opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine such persons. He was also of the view that merely because some of the depositors were not assessed to income tax and had not given PAN/GIR numbers etc. could not be the reason for making addition under Section 68 of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as noted above, has sustained the addition in respect of the depositors at serial number 1 to 8 and has sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company whether original (in cash or otherwise) remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not, which by itself or taken together with the present applicants for Rs.20,000/- or more, in terms of section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (applicable only in case of application made in cash and not in Account Payee s cheque/demand drafts). I/we declare that what is stated in this application is true and correct. I/we have read, understood and agree to abide by the attached terms and conditions governing the deposits. 8. It is stated at the cost of repetition that assessee is a public limited company and the deposits were invited by public notice and not privately. It is also important to note that total deposits in this year, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
