Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2012 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (2) TMI 529 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - bogus investors - Held that - The finding recorded is essentially of fact and particularly that the persons who are alleged to be the bogus investors have been traced and identified. Once the authorities have got all the details, including the names and addresses of the shareholders, their PAN/GIR number, so also the name of the Bank from which the alleged investors received money as share application, then, it cannot be termed as bogus . Tribunal s finding that there is no justification in the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law.
Issues:
Challenge to order allowing the assessee's appeal against CIT (Appeals) order for the assessment year 2004-05. Analysis: The High Court of Bombay heard the appeal where the Revenue was dissatisfied with the order passed in ITA No.150/PNJ/2011, allowing the assessee's appeal against the CIT (Appeals) order dated 29th July, 2011. The assessment year under consideration was 2004-05. The Court examined the relevant orders, including that of the Tribunal, which was being challenged. It was observed that the alleged bogus investors had been traced and identified, with details such as names, addresses, PAN/GIR numbers, and the bank from which they received money as share application. Relying on judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, the Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding on the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the light of the above discussion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no justification for the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was not perverse and did not raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no costs imposed on either party.
|