9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act") challenging the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 1931/Del/2009, for the Assessment Year 2004-2005. 2. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.12,81,250/- made by the Assessing Officer (in short "AO") on account of unexplained share application money under Section 68 of Act. She further submitted that the Tribunal had deleted the said addition even though the respondent-assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition has been made by the A.O. solely on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, without making any further investigation on the issue. Moreover, details about the investigation/enquiry conducted by him or the Investigation Wing on the basis of which it was held that the said company was involved in the business of providing accommodation entry has neither been confronted by the A.O. to the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, nor it has been mentioned in the Assessment Order. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case J.T. (India) Exports and another Vs. UOI and another (2003) 262 ITR 269 (Del-FB) has held that the Assessing Officer must pass a speaking order giving reasons for the conclusions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order, we see no justification for interfering in the impugned order. Transfer of share application money from the bank account of the shareholders to the assessee company is fully established and not in doubt. Therefore, even if it is accepted that applicants had hawala entries in their account, the revenue has to proceed against the applicants and not against the company. This follows from the decisions of their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Export (supra) in which it is held as under: "The assessee had given details of the subscribing share applicants. In case the Department alleged that applicants were bogus, it was free to proceed against the applicants. The share application money received could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
