9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patel, J. 1.This Tax Appeal has been preferred by the Department under Section 206 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising the following substantial question of law: "a) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case the learned ITAT was justified in confirming the Order of CIT (A) who has deleted the entire addition and had failed to appreciate that the Identity of 5 Share Applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -06. Looking to the Assessment Order dated 27thDecember, 2007, it appears that an addition of Rs. 95,15,000/-has been made mainly for the reason that though this amount pertained to share applications, but, the identity of the applicants remained unverified and the assessee could not give reply in this regard. Order dated 27thDecember, 2007 is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Tax Appeal. 3.Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. The learned I.T.A.T. dismissed the appeal preferred by the Department mainly on the ground that Assessee has not only disclosed, relevant particulars with respect to the shareholders, but, the amount received by the Assessee towards share application was also by way of cheque and the Department could have also followed the bank entries because all the share amount was received by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also such prayer could have been made by the Department for issuance of Notices upon share applicants. No such application was preferred before C.I.T. (Appeals) by this appellant. Hence, we see no reason at this stage to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for further verification of share applications. 7.It appears that similar type of cases are coming to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
