9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, the present appeal is confined only to one issue, viz., addition of Rs. 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 facts are that the assessee raised share application money of Rs. 27,40,600/- from eight persons. Out of the above, during the year in question, only a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- was received towards share capital. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated enquiry proceedings in respect of shareholders and sent summons to Shri Amit Gupta, Shri Surender Kumar Srivastava, Shri Moolcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 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 appellant also filed Misc. Application under Section 254 (2) of the Act, which was again dismissed on 05.3.2010. 5. Still dissatisfied, the appellant preferred the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Act. 6. After perusing the orders of the three authorities below, we find that the findings of fact have been recorded by all the Authorities holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tegorically 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 records vide our orders dated 03.8.2011. Those records have been produced and we have gone through the same. From the order-sheet recorded by the AO on various dates, we find that the assessee was specifically told about the statement of two persons, but he never asked for fresh cross-examination. When we go through the communication dated 02.2.2007 along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
