TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of specific information unearthed by the Investigation Wing Delhi and the genuineness of entire transaction was not established by the assessee during assessment proceedings. 2. during hearing of these appeals, we have heard Smt. Aparna Karan, ld. Sr. DR, and Shri H.P. Verma along with Shri Ashish Goyal, ld. Counsel for assessee. Mrs. Karan strongly defended the assessment order by contending that the genuineness of transaction/share application money was not established by the assessee during assessment proceedings, therefore, the ld. first appellate authority is not justified in deleting the impugned additions. The ld. Sr. DR also relied upon the cases and the contention mentioned in the assessment order. The addition u/s 68 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 501000 Suma Finance Investment Ltd. D.D. Corporation Bank 29.6.01 1202400 Suma Finance Investment Ltd. D.D. Corporation Bank 22.8.01 200300 Deepak Gupta Dir. Amba Alloys D.D. S.B. Indore 2.7.02 300750 Ganesh Goyal Dir. Enpol Pvt. Ltd. D.D. Vijaya Bank 2.7.02 401000 Ganesh Goyal Dir. Zigma Telecom Ltd. Jai Laxmi Corpn. Bank 2.7.02 300000 TOTAL: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A) wherein the ld. first appellate authority deleted the impugned additions which are under challenge by the revenue before the Tribunal. Under the aforementioned facts, one clear fact is oozing out that the impugned amounts has been paid through banking channel/demand drafts, consequently, it can be said that the identity of the share applicants was proved by the assessee, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhanraj Gems (ITA No.342/Ind/2008) dated 5.10.2009 supports the case of the assessee. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced herewith: This appeal is by the revenue against the order of ld. CIT-(A)-I, Bhopal, dated 4.4.2008 on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficiently proved. He followed the decision from the Hon ble Apex Court in Steller Investment Ltd. (251 ITR 263) (SC), CIT vs. Ruby Exporters (263 ITR 300) and made the impugned addition of ₹ 40 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The stand of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was that the whole addition is based on surmises/misconceived. The ld. first appellate authority deleted the impugned addition which is under challenge before this Tribunal by the revenue. Admittedly, the assessee filed income-tax returns of these companies/subscribers, therefore, the identity is proved. We are of the view that non-appearance by the subscribers cannot be the sole ground for making the addition u/s 68. This view is sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credit shown as Share Capital held that the assessee must prove the identity of share holders and genuineness of transaction. The Hon ble Apex Court in Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. (supra) even has gone one step further that even the alleged shareholders are bogus still it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. In the present appeal, the assessee duly proved that the amounts were received from specific share holders, their income-tax returns were filed, wherein no defect was pointed out by the revenue, therefore, the identity was proved. In view of these facts, the decision from the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports (supra) clearly supports the case of the assessee. We are making it clear that if the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance P. Ltd. (208 ITR 465) (Kolkata) (para 14); 5. CIT vs. Sibal (RS) (269 ITR 429 (Del) (para 14); 6. CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. (251 ITR 263) (SC) (paras 4, 23); 7. Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (263 ITR 289)(Cal)(para 17); 8. Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur (1989) AIR 1989 SC 38 (para 5); 3. In the light of specific decision from Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports (supra) and various other decisions cited above, we have not found any infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, this appeal of the Revenue is having no merit, consequently, dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court in on 5.10.2009. 5. In the aforesaid case, the Tribunal has already relied upon various judicial prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
