TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO did not question their identity and did not summon them, thus the department is free to proceed to reopen the individual assessment of the depositors but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income - in favour of assessee. - ITA No. - 166 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2012 - Sunil Ambwani, And Aditya Nath Mittal, JJ. Petitioner Counsel :- S.C./A.N. Mahajan 1. We have heard Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Dhananjay Awasthi appearing for the Income Tax Department. Shri Ashish Bansal appears for the respondent assessee. 2. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) arises out of order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A', Lucknow da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to disclose the identity of the persons, so no addition was called for in the hands of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195 (ii) Jaya Securities Ltd v. CIT (2008) (All) (iii) CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd (1991) 192 ITR 287 (Del). 5. In his rival submissions learned CIT, D.R. strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee did not produce the persons who had given share application money, so their creditworthiness and identity remained disproved, as such the addition was rightly made. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the materials available on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company." 6. This Court has followed the judgment in CIT VS.Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (supra) in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Jay Dee Securities Finance Ltd, Income Tax Appeal No. 328 of 2010 and Income Tax Appeal Defective No. 153 of 2010 decided on 11.8.2011. 7. In the present case also, we find that the names, addresses and PAN numbers of the deposits were provided to the AO, which were sufficient to disclose the identity of the persons. The AO did not question their identity and did not summon them. 8. The Supreme Court has CIT VS.Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (supra) clarified that in such a case the department is free to proceed to reopen the individual assessment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
