9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s share application money, by two foreign nationals. The AO rejected the explanation after considering the evidence led before him. The CIT(A), to whom the assessee appealed, rejected its request for adducing additional evidence. However, the Appellate Commissioner had sought a remand report. The assessee appealed to the ITAT which has allowed its plea. 3. The Revenue urges that the ITAT fell into error in not noticing that the assessee had persistently shown debit balance and that along with the returns adequate documents or material had not been led to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the share applicants. It is also contended that adducing additional evidence was of no avail since the CIT(A) correctly observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, and alongwith the application, appellant filed the Tax Returns of both the individuals. That from the perusal of the aforesaid return of income, it would be seen that for the period 06.04.2011 to 05.04.2012, Mr. Curran has shown an income of 1,52,289/- (placed at page 287-289 of PB) and Mr. Gregory stofeldt of AUD 80,217/- which clearly show that such persons are man of means and have sufficient creditworthiness for making investment in the appellant company. In respect of Mr. Patrick Brian Joseph, appellant also filed the confirmation from the bank (placed at page 326-328 of PB) showing that overdraft facility has been granted to him against the investment held by bank and he has used on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd which is wholly unwarranted in law. In fact, additional evidences were computerized documents and have evidentiary value. It is submitted that it is settled law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It is further submitted that it is also settled law that the rigor of the rule of evidence contained in the Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under Income Tax Act. In such circumstances, the additional evidences furnished by the appellant and rejected by the learned CIT(A) which merely supports the claim of the appellant that the investors had sufficient creditworthiness is wholly misconceived." 5. The above extract as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
