TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Similar type of cases are coming to this court often and most of the time sametype of error is committed by the Assessing Officers, either deliberately or due to induced ignorance . This is not the first time such type of matter has been taken up by this Court Commissioner, Income Tax to have orientation courses or induction courses conducted for the Assessing Officers to make them understand that whenever assessee receives any amount by cheque, there is a need for the Assessing Officer to give notice to the drawers of those cheques. T here is no substance in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d? c) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case the order passed by the ITAT is perverse? 2. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the factsand circumstances of the case, it appears that this case is pertaining to Assessment Year 2005-06. Looking to the Assessment Order dated 27thDecember, 2007, it appears that an addition of ₹ 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Tax Appeal mainly for the reason that the addition made by the Assessing Officer should not have been made by him because amount received towards the share applications was by way of cheque. All the details regarding applicants were furnished by the assessee and Department could have issued notices to such applicants. Hence, there was no need for the Assessing Officer to make addition of ₹ 95,15,000/-. 6. It appears that before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also such prayer could have been made by the Department for issuance of Notices upon share applicants. No such applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
