TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the principles enunciated in CIT v. Vishal Holding & Capital Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 634 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) that the invocation of Section 68 in the circumstances is unwarranted. - Decided n favour of assessee - ITA Nos.43/2016 & 44/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2017 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. NAJMI WAZIRI, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel. For The Respondent : Mr. M.P. Rastogi with Mr. K.N. Ahuja, Advocates 1. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT affirmed the Appellate Commissioner s order who had ruled that the additions made under Section 68 to the tune of ₹ 93,45,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. It is observed that the AO based his argument purely on the basis of information from DIT (Investigation), New Delhi. He is entirely relied upon such information for reaching such conclusion. The above information may be a sufficient ground of initiate reassessment proceedings of a case, but no (sic) make an addition the AO has to establish the fact of fraudulent nature of such transaction. Purely on surmises and conjuncture (sic) no transaction can be held as bogus unless the same is proved on the basis of sound reasoning and evidence on the part of the AO before making the addition. When the assessee has furnished all necessary proofs in support of its claim, it is all the more necessary to rebut such evidence with cogent and cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion after receiving the evidences which had been produced by the assessee in support of its claim it was very much open to the A.O. to do his independent enquiry and verification. This has not been done by the A.O. Further, what is the desired documentary evidence required to support the claim of the assessee as required by the A.O. is not coming out of the order of the A.O. 5.4 The appellant has adduced the documentary evidences in support of the transaction in question. The identity of the purchasers of the shares was established as it was borne on the record of the Income Tax Department. The purchasers have PAN card as well. Turning to the shares which were sold by the appellant as per its version, there is no evidence or material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|