TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I 76 - SUPREME Court )- Appeal was dismissed. - IT APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2011 - V.G. SABHAHIT AND S.N. SATYANARAYANA, JJ. Thirumalesh for the Appellant. S. Parthasarathi for the Respondent. JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J. This appeal Is filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' in IT (SS) No. 11/Bang/2002, block assessment years 1989-90 to 1999-2000, wherein the Tribunal by its order dated 12.08.2005, wherein the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 2. This appeal has been admitted for consideration of the following two substantial questions of law by order dated 02.07.2007: 1. Whether the Appellate A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III, Bangalore, in ITA No.804/DC.12(I)/CIR(A)III/2000-01 and the First Appellate Authority by order dated 28.11.2001 allowed the appeal in part. In the meanwhile, the application had been filed before the Settlement Commissioner by M.S.I.L., on 18.06.2001 and the same was pending consideration. The appellate authority deleted the addition of ₹ 3,85,38.500/- being the unexplained share capital in view of the various submissions of the appellant and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. , [2001] 251 ITR 263/115 Taxman 99 and accordingly allowed the appeal in part. Being aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and wherefore the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and substantial questions of law shall be answered in favour of the revenue. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that even before the Assessing Officer, M.S.I.L. had written a letter stating hat it has subscribed to the additional share capital and therefore the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the said letter filed and the finding that the amount should be treated as undisclosed income is baseless. He further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steller Investments Ltd. ( supra ) is applicable to the facts of the case and further the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Ask Brothers Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Investment Ltd. ( supra ) the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ask Brothers Ltd. ( supra ), it is clear that even an amount of share capital contributed is not found to be genuine, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act and in the present case having regard to the letter given by the MSIL stating that it had contributed to the share capital cannot be disputed. Further the report of the Settlement Commissioner has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and though the amount of share capital contribution was ₹ 4,95,38.500/- added as undisclosed income as per the Assessing Officer, the Settlement Commissioner has also accepted the letter given by M.S.I.L. Under the circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
