TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een assessed under the head other sources . During the F.Y. 2001-02 the assessee had received share application monies from other bodies corporate. In the course of assessment the A.O. required the assessee to submit the names, addresses and income tax file nos. of the share applicants and also to explain the mode of payment. In compliance the assessee furnished before the A.O. the aforesaid details including copies of the share applications. In the course of assessment, the A.O. issued notices u/s 133(6) of the I.T.Act to all the share applicants and in response the share applicants confirmed the fact that share application monies were paid by each of them. Copies of their respective bank statements were also submitted before the A.O. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted on their behalf could be authenticated in the presence of Assessing Officer and they could be cross examined in respect thereof. 5. Despite repeated opportunities the assessee co. as well as the investing parties failed to produce any person before the Assessing Officer. The subscribing parties also failed to produce their respective books of A/c. 6. Unauthenticated documents furnished by the assessee co. in respect of share application money were therefore rejected and the amount was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 7. Enquiries show movement of money through different bank a/cs. from cash to share application money in assessee co., confirming the non genuine nature of the same. In the ligh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itworthiness stands proved. In these circumstances the addition ₹ 1,67,50,000/- is not justified. Further the evidences on record clearly established that each of the share applicant had disclosed assets and funds in their accounts substantially more than the amount of share application money paid to the assessee and the share application money was only a small part of their business funds/assets. The assessee, therefore submits that the addition u/s 68 being made on surmise, conjecture and suspicion, the same deserves to be deleted. He also relied on the following case laws : i) CIT Vs- Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC), ii) ITAT, Kolkata B Bench decision in the case of ITO Vs- Chichinga Fatika Cold Storage Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) iv) CIT Vs- R. S. Sibal (2004) 269 ITR 429 (Del.) v) Tirtha Ram Gupta Vs- CIT (2008) 304 ITR 145(P H) vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs- CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gau) vii) CIT Vs- Sophia Finance Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) viii) Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. Vs- CIT (2003) 263 ITR 289 (Kol) He also contended that the case laws relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and hence, are not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. We have heard both the sided, perused the mater ial available on record and the case laws cited by the part ies. We f ind that the issue of the share capital has been considered by Their Lordships of Apex Cour t in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective bank accounts. On the above facts, the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the Hon ble Chhatisgarh High Court in the case of Venkateshwar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would be squarely applicable. We also find that the Ld. DR stated that the facts are distinguishable as cited by the Ld. Counsel in this case but did not point out even a single instance how these cases are distinguishable from the facts of the case. Respectful ly following the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Apex Court cited supra, we delete the addition so made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 68 of the I. T. Act . Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is al lowed. 6. In the resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
