TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2016 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Asha Arora, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Mr. P. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Mr. S. Das, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Anwara Quereshi, Advocate ORDER The Court : The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 6th September, 2006 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench , Kolkata in ITA No.2421/Kol/2005 pertaining to the assessment year 1983-84 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee has come up in appeal. The question formulated at the time of admission of the appeal on 6th June, 2007 reads as follows : (a) Whether and in any event, the Tribunal was justified in law in up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead a list of shareholders was produced. The assessing officer issued notices to fiftysix shareholders. Forty-eight of them did not turn up. Eight shareholders responded by saying that they had never subscribed to the share capital of the assessee. They added that even the parenthood of some of the shareholders was wrongly described. In one case a brother of one of the applicant was shown as the father of the applicant. The balance i.e. nearly forty-eight notices came back with the endorsement not known . All the drawbacks were brought to the notice of the assessee by the assessing officer. The assessee replied by its letter dated 22.03.2002, contents whereof according to the assessing officer was as follows;- that this is not practi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to consider all the evidence furnished by the assessee in support of its claim and decide the issue on merit considering the criteria about identity, creditworthiness, etc. of the share applicants. The assessee is also free to adduce whatever evidence it feels necessary and the C.I.T.(A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee to explain its share. The assessee also shall cooperate with the C.I.T. (A) accordingly. With these directions the matter regarding addition of ₹ 18,67,500/- is restored back to the file of the C.I.T. (A). The CIT (A) in his turn by an order dated 21.09.2005 arrived at the following conclusion; - In view of above discussion of facts and material positions, I decline to agree in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee maintained for the relevant previous year pertaining to the assessment year1983-84. The CIT (A) after giving fullest opportunity to the assessee was of the opinion that an aggregate sum of ₹ 9,90,000/- can be treated as explained. So, the balance was not explained by the assessee. This view of the CIT (A) was upheld by the learned Tribunal. Whether the assessee has been able to explain is essentially a question of fact. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the assessee was not able to explain any part of the sum of ₹ 24,90,000/-. But the CIT (A) and the learned Tribunal were of the opinion that it could be said that he had been able to explain up to ₹ 9,90,000/-. It is not the case of the assessee that any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f facts and has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances before us. No other submission was advanced. We are as such of the opinion that the appeal is altogether unmeritorious. The question formulated is answered as follows;- The Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition on account of alleged share capital to the extent of ₹ 8,77,500/- under Section 68. A sum of ₹ 6,62,000/- had earlier been admitted by the assessee during a disclosure as submitted by Mr. Khaitan. The share capital to the extent of Rs, 9,90,000/- was accepted both by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. We are also of the opinion that the judgement of the learned Tribunal is neither perverse nor arbitrary nor unreasonable. The question is thus a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
