9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent assessee. 2. There is a delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal. 3. We are satisfied with the reasons given by the appellant department for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, the condone delay petition is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 26th July, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B' Bench, Kolkata, in I.T.A No. 255/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. 5. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done an elaborately factual exercise. There were two companies which were involved one being M/s. Honesty Dealers Private Limited and the other M/s. Seaview Agencies Private Limited. The CIT(A) has examined the factual position in respect of both the companies but in so far as M/s. Honesty Dealers Private Limited the CIT(A) found in the assessment year 2009-10, which is a scrutiny assessment under Section 147 of the Act dated 12.3.2015, the entire receipt of share capital has been added in the hands of M/s. Honesty Dealers Private Limited. Further, on perusal of the balance-sheet of the said company, the CIT(A) found that the major chunk of share capital received in the assessment year 2009-10 has been invested in the shares of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the CIT(A) found that the investigation wing has not found any adverse comments against share capital raised by M/s. Seaview Agencies Private Limited in the assessment year 2009-10. Thus, it was concluded that there is nothing on record to suggest that the share capital raised by M/s. Seaview Agencies Private Limited in the assessment year 2009-10 was not genuine. Further, the tribunal on facts concluded that the identity and creditworthiness of the investors are not in doubt and the transaction was found to be genuine. 9. The revenue challenged this order before the tribunal. The tribunal have once again re-appreciated the factual position and more importantly found that the share application money received by the assessee from M/s. Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
