TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could raise ₹ 2, 00, 000/- as advance for investment in a Company in the year 1992. We, hence, find that the essential question raised is on facts as to the satisfactory nature of the explanation offered. We do not think that the reliance placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court can be sustained especially in view of the fact that Section 68 was not noticed by the STELLAR INVESTMENT LIMITED [1991 (4) TMI 100 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. We, hence, refuse to answer the questions of law, on the ground that there was no positive evidence tendered by the assessee as to the source of the amounts shown in the accounts and the explanation offered was also found to be not satisfactory. - I. T. A. No. 7 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2018 - MR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of shares in the Company. The Assessing Officer [for brevity AO ] treated the same as cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity the Act ]. There was a notice issued and the assessee submitted an explanation. ₹ 1, 25, 000/-, which was received from five persons, was accepted as advance share allotment money. As far as ₹ 2, 00, 000/-, the assessee submitted that it was received from one Smt. Rukmini Ammal. The AO was not satisfied about the source of income and, hence, the finding earlier made with respect to that amount was reiterated. The assessee took it in appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority found, relying on the decisions in CI . T . v . Stell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory. 4. Though this is an appeal under Section 260A of the Act and we are not obliged to look into the facts; we have still gone through the order of the AO to understand as to the explanation submitted. By the time the assessment was taken up, the investor died. The daughter-in-law of the deceased submitted that her mother-in-law would have made such investment out of cash in hand. In fact, the specific submission made by the daughter-in-law before the AO was that her husband, the son of the investor, died in the year 1965 and her father-in-law died in 1975. The mother-in-law is said to have been carrying on small chitty and financing business. It is very unlikely that a person carrying on small chitty and financing business could ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
