TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer having traced out the source of funds to specific persons who had invested the same in share of the assessee company, it was open for the Assessing Officer to proceed against the said persons. The funds not having emanated from the assessee company, there was no warrant for making addition of the said amount as undisclosed income under section 68 of the act in its hands. In the circumstances, the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made under section 68 - Decided in favour of the assessee - TAX APPEAL NO. 724 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company towards shares and she also stated that her husband was a businessman who expired in the year 1986 leaving the business funds and income. It is the case of the company that the Tribunal approached the matter as if this was a case of cash credit under Section 68 as distinguished from the share application money from a person whose identity is established and held that onus under section 68 is not discharged. Being aggrieved with the order dated 29.11.2005 of the Tribunal as stated hereinabove, the above Appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Manish J. Shah has taken this Court to the facts of the case and has submitted that the Income Tax Tribunal has wrongly exercised its powers as stated in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions as detailed herein above :- a) Hindustan Inks Resins Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income reported in (2011) 60 DTR (Guj) 18 ; b) Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. reported in (2013) 34 taxmann.com 177 (Gujarat) ; c) Commissioner of Income Tax Gandhinagar v. Bhavana Property Developers Ltd. in Tax Appeal No.1039/2009 dated 11.01.2011; d) The Commissioner of Income Tax I v. M/s. Guptex Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No.1309/2010 dated 14.09.2011; e) Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Nilchem Capital Ltd. in Tax Appeal Nos.2087/2009 with 2088/2009 dated 14.11.2011; f) Commissioner of Income Tax IV v. Satyendra Traders Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No.692/2010 dated 04.10.2011; g) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith law. Such amounts cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the assessee company. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer having traced out the source of funds to specific persons who had invested the same in share of the assessee company, it was open for the Assessing Officer to proceed against the said persons. The funds not having emanated from the assessee company, there was no warrant for making addition of the said amount as undisclosed income under section 68 of the act in its hands. In the circumstances, the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/= made under section 68 of the Act. The question stands answered accordingly, that is, in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
