9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stions of law: "(a) Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby deleting the additions of Rs. 1,34,50,000 to the income of the assessee? (b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the share application money as explained even though the major share investing companies were non-existing? (c) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of both the creditors as well as the genuineness of the transactions? (d) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the director of those compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period ending March 31, 1992. The Assessing Officer however, not being satisfied with the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the share subscription, recorded in its books of account. For coming to the said conclusion, the Assessing Officer relied on four circumstances, namely, (1) the Assessing Officer of another company, Lovely Investment (P) Ltd., wherein the said two companies had made share subscription, had visited Gangtok but had found that these companies did not exist at the given address; (2) Ajay Gupta, who was the common director in both the subscribing companies, did not respond to the summons issued to him to appear before the Assessing Officer and make statement; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the two companies and the receipt of money by means of cheques, on which too much emphasis is laid by the appellate authorities, is not Sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction. She would urge that despite summons issued under section 131 of the Act Ajay Gupta, a common director of both the subscribing companies, did not appear before the Assessing Officer with the result that the Assessing Officer could not elicit further information with regard to the transactions in question. It is thus, pleaded that the Tribunal having ignored the relevant factors germane to the determination of question of genuineness of the transactions, its finding based on irrelevant material, is perverse and, therefore, a substantial question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
