9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,75,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained share capital. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the basis of Observations which are factually incorrect and without appreciating the findings made by the A.O. as indicated in the statement of facts enclosed. 2. That the order of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be vacated and the assessment order passed by the A.O. be restored. 3. That the appellant craves to add or amend any one or more of the grounds of the appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise." 2. In this case, the assessment order dated 031.03.2013 was passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 143(3)/153C of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribers and subsequently shares were allotted to' the above companies against the amounts so received. The subscribers to the shares are income Tax Assessee and have been regularly filing return of Income for last so many years. Before the Assessing Officer the Appellant company has submitted the details that the shareholders are having PAN and are regularly filing their return of income for last so many years. The copies of returns, bank statement, identity of the share holders were filed before the Assessing Officer during the asstt. proceedings and same were also filed before me during the course of appeal Regarding the identity, the appellant has also submitted that all the shareholder are Companies registered under the Companies Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned. Therefore, the total income/loss computed as below: Net profit as per Return Rs. 443/- Rounded off Rs. 440/- In this case when return has been accepted by the department and the department agreed With the returned income Rs. 440/and no addition was made. After considering the above stated facts, it is seen that the Assessing Officer proceedings did not carry out any further enquiry about the share holders despite all details Before Him. The Assessing Officer has not challenged the identity, this means that he agrees and accepts their identity as no query was made by the Assessing Officer, therefore, this covered by the Supreme Court Case Laws of Lovel Exports Pvt 216 CTR 1955 (SC) 2008 & Divine Leasing SC en the Jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 ITR 212 (SC). He further submitted that the Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Smt. Shashi Agarwal vs. DCIT (2024) 167 taxmann.com 687 (Lucknow Trib.), considered aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying on the same. Further, he contended that on merits also, the Ld. Departmental Representative could not point out any infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). 3. We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. On merits, no infirmity has been pointed out, in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). No material has been brought for our consideration to interfere with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
