TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res, had given also an affidavit, stating that, the Company has paid ₹ 30 lakhs to 30,000 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each at a premium of ₹ 90/- to the Assessee Company. CIT(A) and the Tribunal have both come to a finding of fact that amounts received for share subscription is not hit by Section 68 of the Act as the identity, capacity of the shareholder is proved. Besides, the genuineness of the transactions also stands established. In the above circumstances, the concurrent finding of facts by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal do not call for any inference. Particularly in the absence of the Revenue s showing it to be perverse. No substantial question of law - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2019 - M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 28th March, 2012, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 19.40 Crores after calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The remand report indicated that all twenty parties who had subscribed to the shares of the Respondent appeared before the Assessing Officer and submitted confirmation letter of purchase of shares, copy of audited Balance Sheet and Profit Loss Account, copy of Bank Statement along with return of income as well as Form 23AC filed with the Registrar of Companies. It also found that ₹ 4.90 Crores represented an amount received in the earlier Assessment Year and from promoters. Therefore, could not be added as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some of the companies came back un-served, yet thereafter, the companies appeared before him through a representative and made submissions in support of their investments. Further, the impugned order records that change of address was given to the Assessing Officer and yet it appears that notice was served on an incorrect address. Further, Tribunal also records that in fact, one of the Director of the Company which has subscribed the shares, had given also an affidavit, stating that, the Company has paid ₹ 30 lakhs to 30,000 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each at a premium of ₹ 90/- to the Assessee Company. Thus, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have both come to a finding of fact that amounts received for share subscription is not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
